この論文で誌、効率的書き手と非主主率的脅さ手の文章産密造穫の特権を招揺するため、
謁者がどのようにしてプランを生成しているか、どのようにして雷鰯農濃密考え出して
いるかが分析される.分祈の結果、効事的な轡き手拭知臓としてすでに文蛾の全体的な
プランを持っている可能性があること、機現を考えるときにも、プラン惑と生成するとき
にも、常に前後の文脈にあっているかどうか栓砲認していることが涼峨謀れた.また、
非効率的な機意手はプランを生成するときに主にf何を書くかJ しか考えておら-r r ど
のように轡くかJ を検討していないこと部機された.さらに、これらの結果かふ婚率
的書き苧と非始略的書き手の差は、プラ品ングや説み返しという行動の種類や盛だけで
把握できるものではなく、行動の呂鈎やプランの内容といった費約な分訴を行うことに
よってはじ吟て理解できるものであることが添竣される.
How Overseas Graduate Students Compose in}apanese: A Study of Two Writers
Takao Kinugawa, Graduate School of literature, Nagoya University
Zamel (1983) claims the difference in effective and ineffective writers lies in
the nature of planning, whereas Raimes (1985) indicates that ineffective writers
do not have many planning behaviours and do not pay much attention to
mistakes. A cause for these fmdings might be attributed to the quantitative
nature of their research. As Krapels (1990) suggests, processes of text generation
differ from writer to writer, and even within one writer, according to the
nature and context of the task. The purpose of this study is to describe in
detail the composing processes of effective and ineffective second language
writers of Japanese in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of what is
actually happening in JSL writer's mind while they compose. Two graduate
students studying at a Japanese university, one considered to be an effective
writer and the other to be an ineffective writer by a group of JSL teachers,
were examined for the following; 1) How did the writers generate plans and
which strategies did they use during planning; and 2) How did they actually
compose and which strategies did they use in composing. Following thinkaloud
protocols, the students were asked to think aloud while planning and
writing. This process was video recorded for examination. The behaviours of
both writers were classified into three categories: 1) planning processes; 2)
writing processes, and 3) editing processes. These three categories of
behaviours were then examined in the light of 1) how each writer generated
a plan before they started writing, 2) how each writer wrote the fIrst paragraph,
and 3) how each writer continued to generate a plan while writing.
The results showed the following characteristics: 1) the ineffective writer only
thought about "what to write" and did not consider "how to write" in generating
a plan; 2) the ineffective writer's main concern while writing was to write
down the expressions that came to her mind and editing behaviours were
hardly observed; 3) it is suspected that the effective writer had a global plan
concerning the overall structure of the text, i.e., how to start and fInish the
text before beginning to write; 4) the effective writer took the context into
consideration when generating plans and determining appropriate expressions,
and 5) writing and editing behaviours were alternately used in the
effective writer. Finally, the author suggests that future research into JSL writing
should: 1) examine the quality of writer's plans as well as the quantity of
planning behaviours; 2) consider the purpose of rereading as well as the
quantity of rereading behaviours, and 3) clarify what kind of knowledge
writers have concerning the plans of the text.
