To test the effects of interrupting visual feedback on writing, two groups of subjects—9 experienced and 9 inexperienced writers—were prevented from re-reading as they produced written texts. Their texts were then analyzed for error, syntax, over-all quality, and sentence connectedness. While both groups of writers were able to produce relatively well-formed sentences when they could not re-read, both were nonetheless hindered at the level of discourse production. Each group, however, reacted to that hinderance with different linguistic strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtwellM.The evolution of text: The interrelationship of reading and writing in the composing process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana Univer., 1981.
2.
ClarkH. H., & HavilandS. E.Comprehension and the given-new contract. In FreedleR. O. (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1977. Pp. 1–40.
3.
CooperC. R.Holistic evaluation of writing. In CooperC. R. & OdellL. (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1977. Pp. 3–31.
4.
CrowhurstM.Syntactic complexity and teachers' quality ratings of narrations and arguments. Research in the Teaching of English, 1980, 14, 223–231.
5.
DaiuteC. A.Psycholinguistic foundations of the writing process. Research in the Teaching of English, 1981, 15, 5–22.
6.
EmigJ.Hand, eye, brain: Some “basics” in the writing process. In CooperC. R. & OdellL. (Eds.), Research on composing: Points of departure. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1978. Pp. 59–71.
7.
FaigleyL.Names in search of a concept: Maturity, fluency, complexity, and growth in written syntax. College Composition and Communication, 1980, 31, 291–299.
8.
FlowerL. S., & HayesJ. R.Identifying the organization of writing processes. In GreggL. W. & SteinbergE. R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980. Pp. 3–30.
9.
FlowerL., & HayesJ. R.The pregnant pause: An inquiry into the nature of planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 1981, 15, 229–243.
10.
FrawleyW.Universal grammar and composition: Relativization, complementation, and quantification. In FrawleyW. (Ed.), Linguistics and literacy. New York: Plenum, 1982. Pp. 65–90.
11.
FreedmanS.Influences on evaluators of expository essays: Beyond the text. Research in the Teaching of English, 1981, 15, 245–255.
12.
GouldJ. D.Experiments on composing letters: Some facts, some myths, and some observations. In GreggL. W. & SteinbergE. R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980. Pp. 97–127.
13.
HallidayM. A. K., & HasanR.Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976.
14.
KrashenS.Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon, 1981.
15.
McCutchenD., & PerfettiC.Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production. Text, 1982, 2, 113–139.
16.
OdoroffE.Sentence connections and thinking. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, San Francisco, March 1982.
17.
PerlS.The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 1979, 13, 317–336.
18.
PerronJ. D.The impact of mode on written syntactic complexity: Parts I-III. Third, fourth, and fifth grades. Studies in Language Education, Report Nos. 24, 25, and 27, Dept. of Language Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 1976.
19.
PiankoS.A description of the composing processes of college freshmen writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 1979, 13, 5–22.
20.
JoseSan C.Grammatical structures in four modes of writing at fourth grade level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse Univer., 1972.
21.
ShaughnessyM.Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford, 1977.
22.
SommersN. I.Revision in the composing process: A case study of experienced writers and student writers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston Univer., 1978.
23.
StallardC. K.An analysis of the writing behavior of good student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 1974, 8, 206–218.
24.
TelemanU.On visual feedback in writing. Proceedings I, Sixth International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Lund, 1981, 424–425. (Abstract)
25.
Vande KoppleW. J.The given-new strategy of comprehension and some natural expository paragraphs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1982, 11, 501–520.
26.
WitteS. P., & Fi1gleyL.Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 1981, 32, 189–204.
