This article reports on a study in which stimulated recall data and quantitative measures of complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) were used to address three interconnected questions in different planning conditions: (1) how learners share their limited attentional capacity with different cognitive processes of ‘planner/proposer’, ‘translator’ and ‘evaluator/reviser’, (2) what kinds of self-repairs are more prone to be utilized by L2 writers, and (3), which condition can provide a better work plan for producing high quality narratives in terms of CAF triad. Sixty intermediate L2 writers narrated a picture story task in four types of planning conditions. The results show that while on-line planning induced the most cognitive processes of planning, translating and evaluating, pre-task planning reduced the number of processes at the time of writing. Moreover, the results reveal that pre-task planning significantly reduced the amount of self-repair when compared to on-line planning, which activated more error repairs, rephrasing repairs and different information repairs. The CAF measures disclose that enhancement of all measures at the same time could not be attained even with the provision of both pre- and on-line planning simultaneously and therefore lend support to the Overload Hypothesis and the Limited Attentional Capacity Model. The implications of these outcomes are discussed, and suggestions for further research are advanced.

Plagiarism in ESL and EFL learning contexts has become a topic engaging many researchers in a hot debate in recent years. Comparisons of student-generated texts with their source texts have shown that students rely amply on source texts in their writings, using copying as a major strategy. The students themselves relate these problems to their confusion of how to cite. Nevertheless, little research has been conducted on what constitutes effective citation practices in student writing. The present study aims at measuring the effects of teaching anti-plagiarism strategy of proper citation on 19 postgraduate and 34 graduate students' use of multiple sources in their writings. The instructional treatment conducted in 30 min per week for seven sessions, aimed at teaching correct quotation rules and different functions of citation (i.e., presenting the literature in the field, comparing the existing views, supporting the writer's view, etc.), while emphasizing the recognition of these rules at work. The writing samples of the students were three citation tests and source-based writing tasks assigned before, during, and after the treatment. Then the effective citation strategies of the students were analyzed according to their use of standard citation in APA (American Psychological Association) style. The results of the assigned tasks and one survey question demonstrated students' perceived growing confidence and significant improvements in their citation skills in their source-based writings. The results can yield insightful implications for writing course designers to treat significant problems of the students in their academic writings.

This study investigates the role of previously acquired linguistic systems, Mazandarani and Persian, in the acquisition of third language (L3) English at the initial stages. The data have been obtained from 31 students (age 13–14 years), testing the placement of attributive possessives in a grammaticality judgment task, an element rearrangement task and an elicited oral imitation task. The participants consist of three groups: The first two groups have Mazandarani as the first language (L1) and Persian as the second language (L2), but differ from each other with respect to the language of communication, Mazandarani and Persian, respectively. The third group has Persian as the L1 and Mazandarani as the L2, with Persian as the language of communication. English and Mazandarani pattern similarly in the target structures. That is to say, possessors precede possessed nouns and possessive adjectives come before nouns. In contrast, in Persian, possessives occur post-nominally. The results of this study reveal that none of the proposals tested (e.g. the L1 Factor, Hermas, 2010, 2014a, 2014b; the L2 Status Factor, Bardel and Falk, 2007; Falk and Bardel, 2011; the Cumulative Enhancement Model (CEM), Flynn et al., 2004; the Typological Proximity Model (TPM), Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015) could account for the results obtained. This study provides support that at the initial stages of L3 acquisition, syntactic transfer originates from the language of communication, irrespective of order of acquisition.

No abstract

No abstract