Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 1267–1285 | Cite as

Pauses in written composition: on the importance of where writers pause

  • Srdan MedimorecEmail author
  • Evan F. Risko
Article

Abstract

Much previous research has conceptualized pauses during writing as indicators of the engagement of higher-level cognitive processes. In the present study 101 university students composed narrative or argumentative essays, while their key logging was recorded. We investigated the relation between pauses within three time intervals (300–999, 1000–1999, and >2000 ms), at different text boundaries (i.e., between words, sentences, and paragraphs), genre (i.e., narrative vs. argumentative), and transcription fluency (i.e., typing speed). Moreover, we investigated the relation between pauses and various lexical characteristics of essays (e.g., word frequency, sentence length) controlling for transcription fluency and genre. In addition to replicating a number of previously reported pause effects in composition, we also show that pauses are related to various aspects of writing, regardless of transcription fluency and genre. Critically our results show that the majority of pause effects in written composition are modulated by pause location. For example, increased pause rates at word boundaries predicted word frequency, while pause rates at sentence boundaries predicted sentence length, suggesting different levels of processing at these text boundaries. Lastly, we report some inconsistencies when using various definitions of pauses. We discuss potential mechanisms underlying effects of pauses at different text boundaries on writing.

Keywords

Writing Pauses Computational linguistics 

Supplementary material

11145_2017_9723_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)

References

  1. Alamargot, D., Dansac, C., Chesnet, D., & Fayol, M. (2007). Parallel processing before and after pauses: A combined analysis of graphomotor and eye movements during procedural text production. In G. Rijlaarsdam, M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Studies in writing. Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Vol. 20, pp. 13–29). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alves, R. A., Castro, S. L., de Sousa, L., & Stromqvist, S. (2007). Influence of typing skill on pause–execution cycles in written composition. In Rijlaarsdam, G. (Series Ed.) M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Volume Eds.), Writing and Cognition: Research and Applications. Studies in writing (Vol. 20, pp. 55–65). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  3. Alves, R. A., Castro, S. L., & Olive, T. (2008). Execution and pauses in writing narratives: Processing time, cognitive effort and typing skill. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 969–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alves, R. A., & Limpo, T. (2015). Progress in written language bursts, pauses, transcription, and written composition across schooling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 374–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baaijen, V. M., Galbraith, D., & de Glopper, K. (2012). Keystroke analysis: Reflections on procedures and measures. Written Communication, 29, 246–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). Celex2. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  7. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Beauvais, C., Olive, T., & Passerault, J. M. (2011). Why are some texts good and others not? Relationship between text quality and management of the writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brizan, D. G., Goodkind, A., Koch, P., Balagani, K., Phoha, V. V., & Rosenberg, A. (2015). Utilizing linguistically enhanced keystroke dynamics to predict typist cognition and demographics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 82, 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chenu, F., Pellegrino, F., Jisa, H., & Fayol, M. (2014). Interword and intraword pause threshold in writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2014). Pauses in spontaneous written communication: A keystroke logging study. Journal of Writing Research, 6, 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connelly, V., Campbell, S., MacLean, M., & Barnes, J. (2006). Contribution of lower order skills to the written composition of college students with and without dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Connelly, V., Dockrell, J. E., & Barnett, J. (2005). The slow handwriting of undergraduate students constrains overall performance in exam essays. Educational Psychology, 25, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Understanding expert ratings of essay quality: Coh-Metrix analyses of first and second language writing. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 21, 170–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The role of cohesion, readability, and lexical difficulty. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crossley, S. A., Weston, J., McLain Sullivan, S. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28, 282–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deane, P., & Quinlan, T. (2010). What automated analyses of corpora can tell us about students’ writing skills. Journal of Writing Research, 2, 151–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fayol, M. (1999). From on-line management problems to strategies in written composition. In M. Torrance & G. Jeffery (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing: Processing capacity and working memory effects in text production (pp. 13–23). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Foulin, J. N. (1998). To what extent does pause location predict pause duration in adults’ and children’s writing? Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 17, 601–620.Google Scholar
  22. Gilhooly, K. J., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age of acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity and ambiguity measures for 1944 words. Behaviour Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12, 395–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guo, L., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Predicting human judgments of essay quality in both integrated and independent second language writing samples: A comparison study. Assessing Writing, 18, 218–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haas, C. (1989). How the writing medium shapes the writing process: Effects of word processing on planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 181–207.Google Scholar
  27. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Immonen, S. (2011). Unravelling the processing units of transcription. Across Languages and Cultures, 12, 235–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and application (pp. 57–71). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Kellogg, R. T. (1999). Components of working memory in text production. In M. Torrance & G. Jeffery (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing: Processing capacity and working memory effects in text production (pp. 43–61). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. American Journal of Psychology, 114, 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lacruz, I., Denkowski, M., & Lavie, A. (2014). Cognitive demand and cognitive effort in post-editing. In Proceedings of the third workshop on post-editing technology and practice (ATMA), pp. 73–84.Google Scholar
  33. Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30, 358–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems? Memory & Cognition, 23, 767–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maggio, S., Lété, B., Chenu, F., Jisa, H., & Fayol, M. (2012). Tracking the mind during writing: immediacy, delayed, and anticipatory effects on pauses and writing rate. Reading and Writing, 25, 2131–2151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Malvern, D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Duran, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 113–134.Google Scholar
  38. McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCutchen, D., Covill, A., Hoyne, S. H., & Mildes, K. (1994). Individual differences in writing: Implications of translating fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 256–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McKee, G., Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2000). Measuring vocabulary diversity using dedicated software. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 15, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Medimorec, S., Pavlik, P. I., Jr., Olney, A., Graesser, A. C., & Risko, E. F. (2015). The language of instruction: Compensating for challenge in lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 971–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Medimorec, S., & Risko, E. F. (2016). Effects of disfluency in writing. British Journal of Psychology, 107, 625–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Medimorec, S., Young, T. P., & Risko, E. F. (2017). Disfluency effects on lexical selection. Cognition, 18, 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olinghouse, N. G., Santangelo, T., & Wilson, J. (2012). Examining the validity of single occasion, single-genre, holistically-scored writing assessments. In E. Van Steendam, M. Tillema, G. Rijlaarsdam, & H. Van den Bergh (Eds.), Measuring writing. Recent insights into theory, methodology and practices (pp. 55–82). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  47. Olive, T., Alves, R. A., & Castro, S. L. (2009). Cognitive processes in writing during pause and execution periods. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 758–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Olive, T., & Cislaru, G. (2015). Linguistic forms at the process-product interface: Analyzing the linguistic content of bursts of production. In G. Cislaru (Ed.), Writing(s) at the crossroads: The process-product interface (pp. 99–123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). Concurrent activation of high-and low-level production processes in written composition. Memory & Cognition, 30, 594–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paivio, A. (1965). Abstractness, imagery, and meaningfulness in paired-associate learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension Skill. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schilperoord, J. (2002). On the cognitive status of pauses in discourse production. In T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 59–85). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Severinson-Eklundh, K., & Kollberg, P. (1996). A computer tool and framework for analyzing online revisions. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and application (pp. 163–188). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  54. Strömqvist, S. (1999). Production rate profiles. In S. Strömqvist & E. Ahlsén (Eds.), The process of writing: A progress report (pp. 53–70). Gothenburg: Department of Linguistics, University of Göteborg.Google Scholar
  55. Strömqvist, S., & Ahlsén, E. (Eds). (1999). The process of writing: A progress report. Gothenburg papers in theoretical linguistics no. 83. Gothenburg, Sweden: Department of Linguistics, University of Göteborg.Google Scholar
  56. Strömqvist, S., Holmqvist, K., Johansson, V., Karlsson, H., & Wengelin, Å. (2006). What keystroke logging can reveal about writing. In K. Sullivan & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer keystroke logging and writing: Methods and applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  57. Templin, M. (1957). Certain language skills in children: Their development and interrelationships. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  58. Toglia, M. P., & Battig, W. R. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 67–80). New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  60. van Hell, J. G., Verhoeven, L., & van Beijsterveldt, L. M. (2008). Pause time patterns in writing narrative and expository texts by children and adults. Discourse Processes, 45, 406–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Waes, L., & Leijten, M. (2015). Fluency in writing: A multidimensional perspective on writing fluency applied to L1 and L2. Computers and Composition, 38, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Waes, L., & Schellens, P. J. (2003). Writing profiles: The effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 829–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wengelin, Å. (2002). Text production in adults with reading and writing difficulties. In Gothenburg monographs in linguistics (Vol. 20). Göteborg, Sweden: Department of Linguistics, Göteborg University.Google Scholar
  64. Wengelin, Å. (2006). Examining pauses in writing: Theory, methods and empirical data. Computer Key-Stroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications, 18, 107–130. (studies in writing).Google Scholar
  65. Wengelin, Å. (2007). The word-level focus in text production by adults with reading and writing difficulties. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.); M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Volume Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Studies in Writing, Vol. 20, pp. 67–82). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  66. Wengelin, Å., Torrance, M., Holmqvist, K., Simpson, S., Galbraith, D., Johansson, V., et al. (2009). Combined eyetracking and keystroke-logging methods for studying cognitive processes in text production. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations