The aim of the investigation is to portray a composite picture of the native andnon-native expert and novice writers' composing and revising processes as they wrotean argumentative essay in English. Analyses of the experienced and novice writers'revision processes served to answer four main questions posed at the beginning of theexperimental study: 1. When did revisions occur during the composing process? 2.Were there any similarities and differences in the categories of revision the subjectsemployed? 3. Were there any similarities and differences in the techniques the subjectsemployed? and 4. Were there any similarities and differences in the purposes of thesubjects' revisions? These questions were also posed to compare the native and nonnativeexpert writers and the native and non-native novice writers.The results indicate that the native and non-native experienced and novicewriters in this study made changes in the first and second writing sessions, in the fourwriting cycles, and in the combinations pre-draft/first draft and between draft/final draft,although they revised to different extends. Both writer groups coincided in theirpreference for the word level over the surface, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph andglobal levels. The experienced subjects, however, revised at the higher discourse levelsmore often than the novice writers did. No important differences were concludedbetween both writer types in the techniques used for revising. Per purposes of revision,both the expert and novice writers revised with an informational purpose in mind,although they differed in their preference for the rest of purposes of revision: while theexpert writers made higher proportions of meaning revisions, the novice showed atendency for formal changes. Further comparisons indicate there were also similaritiesbetween both types of writers: the unskilled writers in this study were also aware of theneed for making content revisions. Indeed, they made some attempts at improvingmeaning through sentence, paragraph and global revisions, although they failed toachieve success.The native and non-native experienced subjects coincided in their preference forthe word level across drafts and writing sessions. The rest of the levels occurred indescending order as the discourse level ascended from the word to the global level.Global changes were often avoided as they needed more cognitive effort. They alsoshowed interest for the surface level, although they seemed to have the cognitive abilityto manage form and content at the same time. Additions and substitutions ofinformation prevailed over the rest, since the writers hardly ever deleted to start again.Despite the similarities between the native and non-native expert writers, furthercomparisons reveal that the native expert subject showed more concern with meaning,while the non-native were worried about grammatical correctness, which may be due tothe greater emphasis that they receive in L2 writing classes. Also, the subjects displayeddifferent revision patterns, which supports the belief that there is no single revisionpattern resulting in successful prose.The native novice subjects made higher percentages of final version revisions,while the non-native were more inclined to making premature revisions, coupled withlarge numbers of revisions in an attempt to reduce the cognitive load that revisingentailed on their minds. The pre-draft, between-draft and the combinations of draftswere virtually of no importance and, thus, the writers did not go back and forth betweentheir essays and outlines to add changes or to check how well the drafts matched theiroutlines. Yet, both writer types redirected their attention to meaning towards the lateststages of writing and, therefore, they were not insensitive to revision at the higherdiscourse levels, contrary to the beliefs commonly held for novice writers. / El objetivo de esta investigación es describir los procesos de escritura yaprendizaje de escritores nativos y no nativos expertos e inexpertos mientras escribíanun texto argumentativo en inglés. El análisis de los procesos de revisión de losescritores experimentados y menos experimentados sirven como punto de partida paracontestar cuatro preguntas principales: 1. ¿Cuándo se dan las revisiones en el proceso deescritura? 2. ¿Hay similitudes y diferencias en las categorías de revisión que losparticipantes usaron? 3. ¿Hay similitudes y diferencias en las técnicas que losparticipantes emplearon? 4. ¿Hay similitudes y diferencias en los propósitos de lasrevisiones de los participantes? Estas mismas preguntas se plantearon para observar lassimilitudes y diferencias entre los escritores experimentados nativos y no nativos y entrelos escritores no experimentados nativos y no nativos de inglés.Los resultados indican que los escritores expertos y no expertos nativos y nonativos de este estudio hicieron cambios en las dos sesiones de escritura, en los cuatrociclos de escritura, así como en las combinaciones guion/primer borrador y borradorintermedio/borrador final aunque revisaron en diferente medida. Los escritoresexperimentados, sin embargo, revisaron a niveles discusivos más altos con másfrecuencia que los menos experimentados, aunque los menos expertos no soncompletamente inconscientes de la necesidad de hacer revisiones de significado.Los escritores experimentados y menos experimentados nativos y no nativoscoincidieron en su preferencia por la revisión a nivel de la palabra en todos losborradores y sesiones de escritura. No hicieron cambios que afectaran la estructuraglobal del texto puesto que implicaban un mayor esfuerzo cognitivo. A pesar de lassimilitudes los escritores expertos nativos mostraron un mayor interés por elsignificado, mientras los no nativos se preocuparon de la corrección gramatical de sustextos.Los escritores nativos no expertos hicieron un mayor número de revisiones en elborrador final que los no nativos menos experimentados, mientras éstos revisaron enfases demasiado avanzadas del proceso de escritura además de hacer un gran número deellas en un intento de reducir la carga cognitiva que revisar imponía en sus mentes.Ambos se centraron en la comunicación de significado en las fases finales de escritura.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:TDX_UV/oai:www.tdx.cat:10803/9798 |
| Date | 10 February 2006 |
| Creators | Cabrejas Peñuelas, Ana Belén |
| Contributors | Fuster Márquez, Miguel, Martí Viaño, María del Mar, Universitat de València. Departament de Filologia Anglesa i Alemanya |
| Publisher | Universitat de València |
| Source Sets | Universitat de València |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | TDX (Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa) |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess, ADVERTIMENT. L'accés als continguts d'aquesta tesi doctoral i la seva utilització ha de respectar els drets de la persona autora. Pot ser utilitzada per a consulta o estudi personal, així com en activitats o materials d'investigació i docència en els termes establerts a l'art. 32 del Text Refós de la Llei de Propietat Intel·lectual (RDL 1/1996). Per altres utilitzacions es requereix l'autorització prèvia i expressa de la persona autora. En qualsevol cas, en la utilització dels seus continguts caldrà indicar de forma clara el nom i cognoms de la persona autora i el títol de la tesi doctoral. No s'autoritza la seva reproducció o altres formes d'explotació efectuades amb finalitats de lucre ni la seva comunicació pública des d'un lloc aliè al servei TDX. Tampoc s'autoritza la presentació del seu contingut en una finestra o marc aliè a TDX (framing). Aquesta reserva de drets afecta tant als continguts de la tesi com als seus resums i índexs. |
Page generated in 0.0028 seconds