To date, research into dynamic descriptions of text has focused mainly on the spoken mode; and while writing process research has examined language structures, it has largely ignored the functionality (meaning) inherent in them. Therefore, drawing on systemic functional linguistics (SFL) and keystroke logging software, this article takes a further step toward an interdisciplinary dialogue by outlining a new schematic for coding and analyzing revisions. More specifically, we show how revision activity can be tracked within functional components, across functional components, and across clauses in terms of forward and backward movements. By exploring three digitally constructed texts, which were produced and observed unobtrusively in a natural setting, we have attempted to illustrate how one writer’s revising process can be operationalized in terms of (a) chronological movement (sequence) and (b) spatial movement (location). Findings showed how activity was relatively consistent across datasets with regard to session management, revision frequency, and distribution of revision types. Moreover, results also showed how most revision activity occurred at, or ahead of, the point of inscription, particularly with regard to revising the end of clauses. However, findings also indicated that revising the start of clauses was equally important when considering the size of functional components.
AlamargotD.ChanquoyL. (2001). Through the models of writing: With commentaries by Ronald T. Kellogg & John R. Hayes (Vol. 9). Kluwer.
2.
AlvesF.ValeD. C. (2017). On drafting and revision in translation: A corpus linguistics oriented analysis of translation process data. In Hansen-SchirraS.NeumannS.CuloO. (Eds.), Annotation, exploitation and evaluation of parallel corpora (pp. 89–110). Language Science Press.
3.
AntonssonM.JohanssonC.HarteliusL.HenrikssonI.LongoniF.WengelinÅ. (2018). Writing fluency in patients with low-grade glioma before and after surgery. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 53(3), 592–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12373
4.
BaaijenV. M.GalbraithD. (2018). Discovery through writing: Relationships with writing processes and text quality. Cognition and Instruction, 36(3), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1456431
5.
BaaijenV. M.GalbraithD.de GlopperK. (2012). Keystroke analysis reflections on procedures and measures. Written Communication, 29(3), 246–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451108
BarkaouiK. (2016). What and when second-language learners revise when responding to timed writing tasks on the computer: The roles of task type, second language proficiency, and keyboarding skills. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 320–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12316
8.
BarkaouiK. (2019). What can L2 writers’ pausing behavior tell us about their L2 writing processes?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 529–554. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311900010X
9.
BeersS. F.NagyW. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre?Reading and Writing, 22(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5
10.
BehrnsI.AhlsénE.WengelinÅ. (2008). Aphasia and the process of revision in writing a text. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 22(2), 95–110.
11.
BehrnsI.AhlsénE.WengelinÅ. (2010). Aphasia and text writing. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45(2), 230–243. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682820902936425
12.
BereiterC.ScardamaliaM. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
BerryM. (1995). Thematic options and success in writing. In GhadessyM. (Ed.), Thematic development in English texts (pp. 55–84). Pinter.
14.
BiberD. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers (Vol. 23). John Benjamins.
15.
BiberD.BarbieriF. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23
16.
BowenN. (2019). Unfolding choices in digital writing: A functional perspective on the language of academic revisions. Journal of Writing Research, 10(3), 465–498. doi:10.17239/jowr-2019.10.03.03
17.
CarrollM.Murcia-SerraJ.WatorekM.BendiscioliA. (2000). The relevance of information organization to second language acquisition studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(3), 441–466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100003065
18.
ChanquoyL. (2009). Revision processes. In BeardR.MyhillD.RileyJ.NystrandM. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 80–97). SAGE.
19.
Chukharev-HudilainenE.SaricaogluA.TorranceM.FengH.-H. (2019). Combined deployable keystroke logging and eyetracking for investigating l2 writing fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 583–604. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311900007X
20.
ClarkeB. (2016). Textual dynamism as a heuristic for a delicate semantic description of ellipsis patterns. English Text Construction, 9(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.9.1.06cla
21.
CoffinC.DonohueJ. P. (2012). Academic literacies and systemic functional linguistics: How do they relate?Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.004
22.
CrossleyS. A. (2020). Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview. Journal of Writing Research, 11(3), 415–443. doi:10.17239/jowr-2020.11.03.01
23.
DanesF. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In DanesF. (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective (pp. 106–128). Prague: Academic Press.
24.
DaviesF. (1997). Marked theme as a heuristic for analysing text-type, text, and genre. In PiqueJ.VieraD. J. (Eds.), Applied languages: Theory and practice in ESP (pp. 45–80). Universitat de Valencia.
25.
DaviesM. (2004). Two truths . . . of the imperial theme. In BanksD. (Ed.), Text and texture: Systemic Functional viewpoints on the nature and structure of text (pp. 51–107). Paris: L’Harmattan.
26.
DowningA. (1991). An alternative approach to theme: A systemic-functional perspective. Word, 42(2), 119–143.
27.
EnkvistN. E. (1987). Text strategies: Single, dual, multiple. In SteeleR.ThreadgoldT. (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday (Vol. 2, pp. 203–211). Benjamins.
28.
FaigleyL.WitteS. P. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400–414.
29.
FawcettR. P. (2003). The many types of “theme” in English: Their semantic systems and their functional syntax. Paper presented at the Research Papers in the Humanities. Cardiff University, UK.
30.
FayolM. (1999). From on-line management problems to strategies in written composition. In TorranceM.JeffreyG. (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing: Processing capacity and working memory effects in text production (pp. 13–23). Amsterdam University Press.
31.
FlowerL. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In GreggL.SteinbergE. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
FlowerL.HayesJ. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
33.
FriesP. H. (1994). On theme, rheme, and discourse goals. In CoulthardM. (Ed.), Advances in written discourse analysis (pp. 229–249). Routledge.
34.
FriesP. H. (2002). The flow of information in a written text. In FriesP. H.CummingsM.LockwoodD.SpruiellW. (Eds.), Relations and functions within and around language (pp. 117–155). Continuum.
35.
GalbraithD. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In TorranceM.GalbraithD. (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (Vol. 4, pp. 137–157). Amsterdam University Press.
36.
GalbraithD. (2009). Writing as discovery. In ConellyV.BarnettA. L.DockrellJ. E.TolmieA. (Eds.), Teaching and learning writing (British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, pp. 5–26). British Psychological Society.
GalbraithD.BaaijenV. M. (2019). Aligning keystrokes with cognitive processes in writing. In LindgrenE.SullivanK. (Eds.), Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (pp. 306–325). Brill.
39.
GalbraithD.TorranceM. (2004). Revision in the context of different drafting strategies. In AllalL.ChanquoyL.LargyP. (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 63–85). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1048-1_5
40.
GardnerS.NesiH. (2013). A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams024
41.
GuoH.DeaneP. D.RijnP. W.ZhangM.BennettR. E. (2018). Modeling basic writing processes from keystroke logs. Journal of Educational Measurement, 55(2), 194–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12172
42.
HaasC. (1989). “Seeing it on the screen isn’t really seeing it”: Computer writers’ reading problems. In HawisherG. E.SelfeC. L. (Eds.), Critical perspectives on computers (pp. 16–29). Teachers College Press.
43.
HaasC. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Lawrence Erlbaum.
HallidayM. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.
46.
HallidayM. A. K. (2009). Methods—techniques—problems. In HallidayM. A. K.WebsterJ. J. (Eds.), Continuum companion to systemic functional linguistics (pp. 59–86). Continuum.
47.
HallidayM. A. K.HasanR. (1976). Cohesion in English (Vol. 9). Longman.
48.
HallidayM. A. K.MartinJ. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (Vol. 8). Farmer.
49.
HallidayM. A. K.MatthiessenC. M. I. M. (2013). An introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
50.
HasanR. (1985). The texture of a text. In HallidayM. A. K.HasanR. (Eds.), Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (pp. 70–96). Deakin University Press.
51.
HayesJ. R. (2004). What triggers revision? In AllalL.ChanquoyL.LargyP. (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 9–20). Kluwer.
HayesJ. R.FlowerL. S.SchriverK. A.StratmanJ.CareyL. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In RosenbergS. (Ed.), Advances in psycholinguistics: Reading, writing, and language processing (Vol. 2, pp. 176–240). Cambridge University Press.
54.
HoodS. (2009). Texturing interpersonal meanings in academic argument: Pulses and prosodies of value. In ForeyG.ThompsonsG. (Eds.), Text type and texture (pp. 216–233). Equinox.
55.
HylandK. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
56.
KelloggR. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In LevyC. M.RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Lawrence Erlbaum.
57.
KelloggR. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1
58.
KleinP. D.UnsworthL. (2014). The logogenesis of writing to learn: A systemic functional perspective. Linguistics and Education, 26, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2013.12.003
59.
KollbergP. (1998). S-notation—A computer based method for studying and representing text composition. Licentiate thesis, Department of Numerical Analysis and Computing, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).
60.
LeijtenM.Van WaesL. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research using inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313491692
61.
LeijtenM.Van WaesL.SchrijverI.BernoletS.VangehuchtenL. (2019). Mapping master’s students’ use of external sources in source-based writing in L1 and L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 555–582. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000251
62.
LeijtenM.Van WaesL.SchriverK.HayesJ. R. (2014). Writing in the workplace: Constructing documents using multiple digital sources. Journal of Writing Research, 5(3), 285–337. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.05.03.3
63.
LevyC. M.RansdellS. E. (1996). Writing signatures. In LevyC. M.RansdellS. E. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 149–162). Lawrence Erlbaum.
64.
LiardétC. L. (2013). An exploration of Chinese EFL learner’s deployment of grammatical metaphor: Learning to make academically valued meanings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.008
65.
LindgrenE.SullivanK. P. H. (2006). Analysing online revision. In SullivanK. P. H.LindgrenE. (Eds.), Studies in writing, computer keystroke-logging and writing: Methods and applications (pp. 157–188). Elsevier.
66.
LindgrenE.SullivanK. P. H. (Eds.). (2019). Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting. Brill.
67.
MacArthurC. A. (2012). Evaluation and revision. In BerningerV. (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 461–483). Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
68.
MartinJ. R. (1991). Nominalization in science and humanities: Distilling knowledge and scaffolding text. In VentolaE. (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses (Vol. 55, pp. 307–338). Mouton De Gruyter.
69.
MartinJ. R. (1992). English text: system and structure. John Benjamins.
70.
MartinJ. R.RoseD. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). Continuum.
71.
MatsudaP. K.JefferyJ. V. (2012). Voice in student essays. In HylandK.Sancho GuindaC. (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 151–165). Palgrave Macmillan.
72.
MauranenA. (1996). Discourse competence—Evidence from thematic development in native and non-native texts. In VentolaE.MauranenA. (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and Textual issues (pp. 195–230). John Benjamins.
73.
MillerK. S. (2000). Academic writers on-line: Investigating pausing in the production of text. Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400203
74.
MooreN. (2012). Modelling the flow of discourse in a corpus of written academic English. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2011,”Birmingham, UK.
75.
NesiH.GardnerS. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press.
76.
O’DonnellM. (2013). A dynamic view of choice in writing: Composition as text evolution. In FontaineL.BartlettT.O’GradyG. (Eds.), Systemic functional linguistics: Exploring choice (pp. 247–266). Cambridge University Press.
RévészA.KourtaliN.-E.MazgutovaD. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67(1), 208–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12205
79.
RévészA.MichelM.LeeM. (2019). Exploring second language writers’ pausing and revision behaviors: A mixed-methods study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 605–631. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311900024X
80.
RijlaarsdamG.CouzijnM.Van den BerghH. (2004). The study of revision as a writing process and as a learning-to-write process. In AllalL.ChanquoyL.LargyP. (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 189–207). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1048-1_12
81.
RobertI. S.Van WaesL. (2014). Selecting a translation revision procedure: Do common sense and statistics agree?Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 22(3), 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2013.871047
82.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum.
83.
SchoonenR. (2005). Generalizability of writing scores: An application of structural equation modeling. Language Testing, 22(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt295oa
84.
Severinson-EklundhK.KollbergP. (2002). Studying writers’ revision patterns with S-notation analysis. In OliveT.LevyC. M. (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing. Kluwer.
85.
SinharayS.ZhangM.DeaneP. (2019). Prediction of essay scores from writing process and product features using data mining methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 32(2), 116–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2019.1577245
86.
Spelman MillerK. (2002). Units of production in writing: Evidence of topic “framing” in on-line writing research. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 255–272.
87.
Spelman MillerK. (2006). Pausing, productivity and the processing of topic in online writing. In SullivanE. L. (Ed.), Computer keystroke logging: Methods and applications (Vol. 18, pp. 131–155). Elsevier.
ThompsonG. (2009). Grammatical metaphor and success in academic writing. In HuntonS.OakeyD. (Eds.), Introducing applied linguistics: Concepts and skills (pp. 27–35). Routledge.
90.
ThompsonG.ZhouJ. (2000). Evaluation and organization in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. In HunstonS.ThompsonG. (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 121–141). Oxford University Press.
91.
TorranceM.ThomasG. V.RobinsonE. J. (2000). Individual differences in undergraduate essay-writing strategies: A longitudinal study. Higher Education, 39(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003990432398
92.
UccelliP.DobbsC. L.ScottJ. (2013). Mastering academic language organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312469013
93.
Van WaesL. (1991). De invloed van de schermgrootte op het revisiegedrag [The influence of screen size on revision behavior]. In BaxM. M. H.VuyckW. (Eds.), Thema’s in de Taalbeheersing [Themes in applied linguistics] (pp. 240–252). ICG Publication.
94.
Van WaesL.LeijtenM.MariënP.EngelborghsS. (2017). Typing competencies in Alzheimer’s disease: An exploration of copy tasks. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.050
95.
Van WaesL.SchellensP. J. (2003). Writing profiles: The effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(6), 829–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00121-2
96.
Van WeijenD. (2009). Writing processes, text quality, and task effects: Empirical studies in first and second language writing. LOT Dissertation Series.
97.
VentolaE. (1987). The structure of social interaction: A systemic approach to the semiotics of service encounters. Pinter.
98.
WengelinÅ. (2007). The word level focus in text production by adults with reading and writing difficulties. In GalbraithD.TorranceM.Van WaesL. (Eds.), Writing and cognition (pp. 67–82). Elsevier.
