No abstract

This cross-sectional study drew on verbal protocol data to analyze the purported problemsolving nature of formulation processes. More precisely, our aim was to explore the allocation of composing time to problem-solving formulation processes in relation to 2 independent variables: (a) the language of composition (i.e., native language [L1] vs. second and foreign language [L2] writing); and (b) the writer's L2 proficiency (via 3 groups at different levels of proficiency). The results showed that the participants devoted twice as much time to dealing with formulation problems in the L2 than in the L1 and that the amount of time allocated to solving problems in the L2 did not depend on proficiency. Proficiency exhibited an apparent influence on the type of formulation problems the writers posed themselves: With increased proficiency, there was an increase, although not a linear one, in the time devoted to improving the expression of meaning or to discovering a better match between intention and expression, or both, and a decrease in the time devoted to compensating for the lack of linguistic resources. We discuss these findings in the light of process-oriented writing research and suggest implications for theory and research.

No abstract

This introductory chapter to the book serves to set the scene for both the three strands of research reviewed in Part I (learning to write, writing to learn content, and writing to learn language), and for the empirical studies contained in Part II. It does so by situating the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn perspectives explored in the book in second language (L2) writing and second language acquisition (SLA) scholarship. The aims of the book are accounted for against this background, emphasizing the way in which the collections helps to expand the L2 writing and SLA research agendas. This is complemented with an overview of the structure of the book and of the different chapters in it.

No abstract