Analysing revisions in online writing

  • Rikke Hartmann Haugaard
  • Helle Dam Jensen
Keywords: writing; revision of form and content; professional text production; online revision taxonomy; keystroke logging; continuum

Abstract

New technology has given new insights into the writing process of professional text producers. Keystroke logging can give the researcher knowledge about how text producers write and revise their texts, both at the level of form and content. With a point of departure in the results of Haugaard’s (2016) study of journalistic writing, this article suggests a reassessment of the online revision taxonomy developed by Lindgren/Sullivan (2006b), with a focus on external revisions. In order to be able to interpret the effect of online revisions on the text by means of keystroke logging, it is proposed that revisions be analysed with a point of departure in the semantic content involved, rather than according to location, i.e. in the text already transcribed (contextual revision) or in the text currently being transcribed (pre-contextual revision), as suggested by Lindgren/Sullivan (2006b). It is argued that contextual and pre-contextual revisions should not be conceptualised as dichotomous entities, but as open categories on a continuum of semantically meaningful context, on the basis of which revisions can be interpreted depending on the degree of completeness of the context in which they are made. 

References

Alamargot, Denis/Chanquoy, Lucile 2001: Through the Models of Writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Baaijen, Veerle M./ Galbraith, David/Glopper, Kees de 2012: Keystroke Analysis: Reflections on Procedures and Measures. In Written Communication 29(3), 246–277.
Bridwell, Lillian S. 1980: Revising strategies in twelfth grade students’ transactional writing. In Research in the Teaching of English 14(3), 197-222.
Chanquoy, Lucile 2009: Revision processes. In Beard, Roger/Myhill, Debra/Riley, Jeni/Nystrand, Martin (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of writing development. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 80-97.
Chenoweth, N. Ann/Hayes, John R. 2001: Fluency in Writing: Generating Text in L1 and L2. In Written Communication 18, 80-98.
Chenoweth, N. Ann/Hayes, John. R. 2003: The Inner Voice in Writing. In Written Communication 20, 99-118.
Faigley, Lester/Witte, Stephen 1981: Analyzing Revision. In College Composition and Communication 32(4), 400-414.
Fitzgerald, Jill 1987: Research on revision in writing. In Review of Educational Research 57(4), 481-506.
Flower, Linda/Hayes, John R. 1981: A cognitive process theory of writing. In College Composition and Communication 32(4), 365-387.
Freedman, Sarah W. 1985: Introduction. In Freedman, Sarah W. (ed.), The Acquisition of Written Language: Response And Revision. Nordwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, x-xv.
Haugaard, Rikke Hartmann 2016: Hvordan skriver og reviderer journalister? Et eksplorativt og kvalitativt casestudie af journalistisk tekstproduktion med fokus på revision af indhold og sprogligt udtryk ved det spanske dagblad El Mundo. PhD thesis, Aarhus university.
Haugaard, Rikke Hartmann 2018: Journalistic News Writing: A Case Study on Revisions of Content and Form. In Fachsprache. Journal of Professional and Scientific Communication 40(3-4), 122-139.
Hildick, Wallace 1965: Word for word: The rewriting of fiction. London: Faber and Faber.
Hill, Charles A/Wallace, David L/Haas, Christina 1991: Revising On-Line: Computer Technologies and the Revising Process. In Computers and Composition – An International Journal 9(1), 83-109 [online]. http://computersandcomposition.candcblog.org/archives/v9/9_1_html/9_1_6_Hill.html (accessed 12 April 2018).
Humes, Ann 1983: Research on the Composing Process. In Review of Educational Research 53(2), 201-216.
Kaufer, David. S/Hayes, John R/Flower, Linda 1986: Composing Written Sentences. In Research in the Teaching of English 20(2), 121-140.
Kollberg, Py/Severinson Eklundh, Kerstin 2001: Studying writers’ revising patterns with s-notation analysis. In Olive, Theirry/Levy, C. Michael (eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer academic publishers, 89-104.
Krogh, Ellen 2003: Et fag i moderniteten. Danskfagets didaktiske diskurser. PhD dissertation, Dansk Institut for Gymnasiepædagogik, Syddansk Universitet.
Lindgren, Eva 2005: Writing and Revising. Didactic and Methodological Implications of Keystroke Logging. PhD thesis, Skrifter från moderna språk 18, Department of Language Studies, Umeå University.
Lindgren, Eva/Sullivan, Kirk P. H. 2006a: Writing and the analysis of revision: An overview. In Sullivan, Kirk P. H./Lindgren, Eva (eds.), Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing. Oxford: Elsevier, 31-44.
Lindgren, Eva/Sullivan, Kirk P. H. 2006b: Analyzing on-line revision. In Sullivan, Kirk P. H./Lindgren, Eva (eds.), Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing. Oxford: Elsevier, 157-188.
Matsuhashi, Ann 1987: Revising the text and altering the plan. In Matsuhashi, Ann (ed.), Writing in real time. Modeling text production processes. Norwood, NJ: Albex Publishing Corporation: 197-223.
Murray, Don 1978: Internal revision: A process of discovery. In Cooper, Charles R./Odell, Lee (eds.), Research on composing. Points of departure. National Council of Teachers of English. Illinois, 85-104.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1977: Write/rewrite: An assessment of re-vision skills: Selected results from the second national assessment of writing. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 141 826.
Nold, Ellen 1979: Alternatives to mad-hatterism. In McQuade, Donald. (ed.), Linguistics, stylistics, and the teaching of composition. Akron, OH: University of Akron, 103-117.
Nystrand, Martin 2001: Cultural support for empirical research on writing. In Coppock, Patrick (ed.), The semiotics of writing: Transdisciplinary perspectives on the technology of writing. Turnhout: Brepols, 115-136.
Perl, Sondra 1979: The composing process of unskilled college writers. In Research in the Teaching of English 13(4), 317-336.
Perrin, Daniel 2003: Progression analysis (PA): investigating writing strategies at the workplace. In Journal of Pragmatics 35, 907–921.
Perrin, Daniel 2013: Investigating language and the media: The case of newswriting. In AILA Review 26, 57–78.
Rohman, D. Gordon/Wlecke, Albert O. 1964: Pre-Writing: The Construction and Application of Models for Concept Formation in Writing. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Cooperative Research Project No. 2174. East Lansing: Michigan State.
Severinson Eklundh, Kerstin/Kollberg, Py 1996: A computer tool framework for analyzing online revisions. In Levy, C. Michael/Ransdell, Sarah (eds.), The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 163-188.
Sommers, Nancy 1980: Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. In College Composition and Communication 31(4), 378-388.
Stallard, Charles K. 1974: An analysis of the behavior of good student writers. In Research in the Teaching of English 8, 206-218.
Stevenson, Marie/Schoonen, Rob/Glopper, Kees de 2006: Revising in two languages: A multi-dimensional comparison of online writing revisions in L1 and FL. In Journal of Second Language Writing 15, 201–233.
Van Hout, Tom 2010: Writing from Sources: Ethnographic Insights into Business News Production. PhD thesis. Department of Language and Communication, Ghent University.
Van Waes, Luuk/Schellens, Peter Jan 2003: Writing profiles: the effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers. In Journal of Pragmatics (35), 829-853.
Witte, Stephen P. 1985: Revising, Composing Theory, and Research Design. In Freedman, S. W. (ed.), The Acquisition of Written Language: Response and Revision. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 250-284.
Witte, Stephen P. 1987: Pre-Text and Composing. In College Composition and Communication 38(4), 397-425
Published
2019-10-31
How to Cite
Haugaard, R. H., & Dam Jensen, H. (2019). Analysing revisions in online writing. HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 59(1), 35-51. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v59i1.116981
Section
THEMATIC SECTION