Online-revideringar i svenska som främmandespråk – en longitudinell studie

Main Article Content

Iwona Kowal

Abstract

Writing is a complex process in which different sub-components both follow each other and interact with each other. Tracking and revising the text is a natural behaviour that helps the writer to shape the text in a de­sirable way - both in terms of its form and content. Previous studies of self-corrections by second language learners, for example, have shown that they most often correct spelling or formal, linguistic errors or that conceptual changes increase as language skills in the foreign language develop. This paper presents an analysis of online revisions with respect to the orientation of the corrections, i.e. typographical, linguistic and con­ceptual revisions. The texts were collected at the end of each semester during the first three years of language learning. The analysis has shown that, regardless of language level, foreign language learners in the study group focused most on the surface of the text, which was reflected in corrections of typographical errors. In addition, two revision patterns were observed: one characterised by a simultaneous focus on different dimen­sions when revising the text, while the other was characterised by a greater focus on one aspect of the text (usually typography), while the others received less attention.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Kowal, I. (2021). Online-revideringar i svenska som främmandespråk – en longitudinell studie. Folia Scandinavica Posnaniensia, 31, 4-14. Retrieved from https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/fsp/article/view/31411
Section
Linguistics

References

  1. Barkaoui, K. (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. The Modern Language Journal 100(1), s. 320–340.
  2. Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. The Psychology of Education and Instruction Series. Broadway, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  3. Britton, J. et al. (1975). The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18). London: Schools Council.
  4. Chennoweth, N. A., Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in Writing. Generating Text in L1 and L2. Written Communication 18(1), s. 80–98.
  5. Faigley, L., Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing Revision. College Composition and Communication 32(4), s. 400–414.
  6. Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research 57(4), s. 481–506.
  7. Flower, L., Hayes, J. R. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication 32(4), s. 365–387.
  8. Flower, L. et al. (1986). Detection, diagnosis and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication 37(1), s. 16–55.
  9. Kellogg, R. T.(1996). A model of working memory in writing.[I:]: M. Levy & S. Ransdell (red.), The science of writing: theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (s. 57–71). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  10. Kowal, I. (2011). Online revisions in FL writing: general rules and individual differences. [I:] J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (red.), Individual learner differences in SLA (s. 309–320). Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
  11. Kowal, I. (2016). The Dynamics of Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Second Language Development. Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press.
  12. Lindgren, E., Sullivan, K. P. (2006). Analysing Online Revision. [I:] E. Lindgren & K. P. H. Sullivan (red.), Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing : Methods and Applications (s. 157–188). Amsterdam: Brill.
  13. New, E. (1999). Computer-aided writing in French as a foreign language: A qualitative and quantitative look at the process of revision. The Modern Language Journal, Volume 1, s. 80–97.
  14. Rohman, D. G. (1965). Pre-Writing the Stage of Discovery in the Writing Process. College Composition and Communication 16(2), s. 106–112.
  15. Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication 31(4), s. 378–388.
  16. Stevenson, M. et al. (2006). Revising in two languages: A multi-dimensional comparison of online writing revisions in L1 and FL, Journal of Second Language Writing 15(3), s. 201–233.
  17. Strömqvist, S. & Malmsten, L. (1998). Scriptlog pro 1.04 - user’s manual. Technical. Göteborg: University of Göteborg.