Table Of ContentResearch Paper Writing Strategies of
Professional Japanese EFL Writers
Kazuko Matsumoto
Four Japanese university professors were interviewed on their processes and
strategiesfor writingaresearch paperin English as aForeign language (EFL).
The results show that these professional EFL writers use strategies similar to
those used by skilled native English and proficient ESL writers as reported in
previousstudies,haveanexplicitviewofwritingasanonlineardynamicprocess
and as a way of discovering meaning and ideas, supplement writing at the
computer with writing with pen and paper, and basically do not rely on L1
Japanese in the EFL writing process. It was also found that their L2 research
paperwritingprocessisperceivedasvirtuallyequivalenttotheirL1 counterpart,
whichsuggeststhatalreadyexistingL1 writingstrategiestransfertoL2writing.
Introduction
Recent writing process research has shown marked differences in the ways
skilledandunskillednativeEnglishwritersgoabouttheirwriting(Bridwell,
1980;Faigley& Witte,1981;Perl,1979;Pianka,1979;Sommers,1980;Stallard,
1974; Wall & Petrovsky, 1981). Similarly, studies have also highlighted dif
ferences between skilled and unskilled ESL writers in their composing be
haviorsand thestrategiestheyemployin the L2 writingprocess (Lay, 1982;
Raimes, 1985;Zamel, 1983).Thefindings ofthese L1 and L2writingprocess
studiesare,ingeneral,remarkablysimilaracrosslanguages.First,skilledand
unskilledwritersdifferinprewritingactivities.Unskilledwritersspendonly
ashorttimeonplanningbeforebeginningtowrite,andtendtoadheretothe
outline or plan that was originally made, rarely changing that plan in the
writing process. Better writers, on the other hand, spend more time on
planning,and changeand revise the originalplanflexibly and freely when
ever they have come up with a new idea in the writing process. That is,
skilledwriters' plansareflexible,whereasunskilledwriters' plansarerather
fixed (Pianka, 1979; Raimes, 1985; Sommers, 1980; Stallard, 1974; Zamel,
1983). Second,the two groups differ in revisionactivities. Unskilled writers
rarelydomeaning-changingrevisions. Theytakepausessofrequentlyinthe
composing process, paying attention largely to the correction of surface
errors of grammar, spelling, and punctuation (i.e., editing) to avoid any
surface-level mistakes from thebeginningthat they tend to lose the flow of
meaning throughout the text in the writing process (Perl, 1979; Wall &
Petrovsky, 1981;Zamel, 1985). For proficientwriters, onthe otherhand, the
TESLCANADAJOURNAUREVUETESLDUCANADA 17
VOL.13,NO.1,WINTER1995
primaryconcern is the development and formulation ofideas, and the cor
rectionofsurfacegrammaticalfeatures shouldbeanissueonlyneartheend
ofthewritingprocess.Thatis,skilledwritersprimarilypayattentiontoideas
andtheoverallcontentratherthantotheform, dealingwithlargerchunksof
discourse without worrying about minor formal aspects and delayingedit
ing until the end of the process (Bridwell, 1980; Faigley & Witte, 1981;
Raimes, 1985; Zamel, 1983). Third, the views of the writing process differ
between the groups. Unskilled writers generally view writing as a
straightforward expansion of the original plan, that is, a simple linear pro
cess,whereasskilledwritersviewwritingasanonlinear,creative,generative
processwherebytheydiscovernewideas,explore,andformulatethoseideas
(Perl,1979;Zamel,1982).
Moreover, other studies have demonstrated similarities between the L1
andL2composingprocesses.JonesandTetroe(1987),forexample,lookedat
Spanish-speaking ESL writers generating texts in Spanish and ESL; they
found that the quality of planning transfers from Ll to L2 and thus certain
aspects ofa writer's L1 writing process transfer to that person's L2 writing
process. In an analysis of advanced ESL learners with differing Ll back
groundscomposingintheirrespectiveLlsandESL,Hall(1990)showedthat
the students' revisions were strikinglysimilaracross languages, suggesting
use ofa single system in revising across Ll and L2. Further, Arndt's (1987)
studywithChinese-speakinggraduate-levelESLstudentsalsorevealedthat
the processes and strategies of each individual writer remain consistent
across Ll and L2 composing (compare Lay, 1982). These studies seem not
onlyto provideevidencefor transferofalreadyexistingLl writingstrategy
to L2 writing (compare Berman, 1994),butalso to suggestthe possibilityof
"composing universals" that go beyond the likeness of Ll and L2 writing
(Krapels,1990,p.53).
Thestudyreportedinthisarticlewasanattempttoexploreand describe
researchpaperwritingbehaviorsandstrategiesofprofessionalJapaneseEFL
writers. Morespecifically,thefollowing researchquestionswereaddressed:
(a) What processes do professionalEFL writers follow, and what strategies
do theyuse in various stages ofthe research paper writing process? (b) Do
the writers use L1 in L2 research paper writing? If so, when and for what
purposeistheiruseofL1?(c)Dothewritersfollowthesameprocessanduse
the same strategies when they write inLl and inL2? Ifnot, howare the Ll
andL2writingprocessesdifferent? (d)Whatarethewriters' viewsofLl/L2
researchpaperwritingand writingingeneral? and (e) Howdid the writers
acquirenative-likeL2writingskillsandproficiency?
18 KAZUKOMATSUMOTO
Methodology
Interviews withJapanese Professors
ThedatawerecollectedbyinterviewingfourJapaneseuniversityprofessors
teachinginJapan. Allarewell-knownmaleresearchersinthehumanitiesin
their mid-30s to mid-40s. They all hold doctoral degrees from American
universitiesandhavepublishedarticleswidelybothinEnglishandJapanese
in theirownfields. Allofthem started learningEFLat theage of13during
theirfirst yearofjuniorhighschool,which theJapanese MinistryofEduca
tion requires of every student. They then continued to learn EFL as senior
highschoolstudents,universityundergraduatestudents, and graduatestu
dentsinJapan.Threeoftheprofessorshadtaughtattheuniversityorcollege
level in Japan before coming to the United States for doctoral studies,
whereas the remainingonestarted teaching onlyafter he returned toJapan
from his PhD study at an American university. None ofthem had lived in
English-speakingcountriesfor morethantwomonthsbeforetheystartedto'
workfordoctoraldegreesintheUS;theaveragelengthoftheirstayintheUS
was3.5years.
Theinformantswerecontacteddirectlybytelephoneconcerningthepos
sibility of serving as informants for this study. Because one of the five
professors who were originally in my list of "best" informants declined to
participate, this study ended up analyzing four professors' research paper
writing strategies. The interviews were conducted inJapanese for approxi
matelyonehourineachprofessor'soffice,andwereaudiorecordedforlater
analysis.Theinterviewsweresemistructured,thatis,althoughtheycentered
around thefive researchquestions stated above, the informantswere given
opportunities to provide freely any information concerning their writing
habits and behaviors. The data were not transcribed, because the interac
tionalaspectwasnotthefocusofthisstudy;thusthequalitativeanalysiswas
donesolelybylisteningtothetapeandtakingdetailednotes.
Results
Professors' Research Paper Writing Strategies
As a result of the analysis of the interview data, some of the distinctive
research paper writing strategies and behaviors common to these profes
sional EFL writers have beenidentified. The results follow with illustrative
excerptsfromtheprofessors' oralself-reports,eachofwhichhasbeentrans
latedintoEnglishfromJapanese.
Planning
The professorsreported that inthe planningstagetheyusuallyfirst decide,
atleastroughly,towhichjournaltheywillsendthepaper,andbegintowrite
with a specific audience in mind. They all emphasized the importance of
TESLCANADAJOURNAUREVUETESLDUCANADA 19
VOL.13,NO.1,WINTER1995
beingwellawareofspecificreadersineverystageoftheL2writingprocess.
AsProfessorKsays:
Itisalmostimpossiblefor metowriteapaperwithoutthinkingofany
specificaudiencewhowillreadthepaperafteritisacceptedandpub
lished.Eachjournalhasitsownreaders,andwemusttakeintocon
siderationthecharacteristicsoftheaudience, theireducationallevelor
native-languagebackground,forexample.Ifthereadersareageneral
audiencewithoutmuchfamiliaritywiththetopicofthepaper,wemust
trynottouse,oratleasttrytoexplain,highlytechnicalvocabularyto
aidtheircomprehension.Evenwhenwritingtoprofessionalresearchers
orscholarsinaspecificfield, eachjournalhasitsownspecificaudience:
for example,thereadersofJournalA,whichusuallypublishesqualita
tivestudies,mightnotbefamiliarwithhighlytechnicalstatistical
analysesinexperimentalstudies.Itissignificantthatyoufirst survey
thecharacteristicfeatures ofeachjournalyouareinterestedintheplan
ningstage.
All the professors interviewed in this study use word processing for
planning and invention; they write down whatever comes to mind on the
selected topic in the prewriting stage while organizing the generated ideas
onthe screen. More specifically, oneofthese sophisticated writers depends
solelyonword-processing,whereasthreeofthemusuallysupplementword
processing with handwriting for effective brainstorming. Their plan
ning/prewriting usually takes the following form: they first decide on the
titleofthe paper,whichis usually tentative, and thenmakea rough outline
by setting up such sections as the introduction, discussion, and conclusion,
workingonplanningwhatwillbesaidand whichreferenceswillbequoted
in each section, for example. The writers all pointed out that their plans,
being so tentative, never fail to be changed once they begin to write, often
leading them to alter the original plan completely during the composing
process.
Composing with a Word-processor
All of the professors responded that they write research papers using a
word-processor. Morespecifically,theycomposeatthecomputerinvarious
stages of the L2 writing process, including the planning stage as shown
above;theythinkand createand revise ideaswhilecomposingand revising
at the computer. They do not usually just type on the screen the paper
already composed with pen and/or typewriter, nor do their composing
processesinvolveLl-into-L2translation. Theprofessorsreported, however,
thatalthoughtheyprimarilyusethecompose-at-the-computerstrategy,they
do notrelyonword-processingaloneintheEFLwritingprocess. Evidently,
althoughappreciatingtheadvantages,theynotedcertainlimitationsofcom-
20 KAZUKOMATSUMOTO
puter-writing,whicharelargelyconcernedwiththevisual-spatialconstraint
placedonthecomputerscreen,suchasdifficultyinlocatinginformationand
difficulty in appropriate reordering oftext (Case, 1985; Haas, 1989; Haas &
Hays, 1986; Lutz, 1987). Referring to the limitations of computer-writing,
ProfessorTsays:
Ihavebeenenjoyingwritingonthecomputer.Writingwitha word
processoriscertainlyconvenient,especiallyitmakesrevisionsalmostin
stantaneous. But,atthesametime,Ihavealsocometofeel
disadvantagesofworkingwiththecomputer. Ioftenfeel thatIamcom
pelledtospendmoretimethanwhenIusedtowritewithpenand
typewriteronly,ontheformal orsurfaceaspectsofwritingsuchas
punctuationandspelling,andword-orphrase-leveloptions,unneces
sarilylookingfor formal perfection,inasense.SoImakeita rulenotto
relyonthecomputerscreenalonerecently;Itrytousepenandpaper,
especiallyintheplanningandrevisingstagesbecauseitisoftendif
ficult,althoughnotimpossible,todoeffectiveglobal-levelplanningand
revision,forexample,movinga wholeparagraph,whenwritingwith
word-processing,especiallyworkingonalongpaper.
Revising
ThetwomajorstrategiestheseprofessionalwritersemployintheL2writing
process are the pay-attention-to-content strategy and the multiple-revision
strategy.Thewritersreportthattheycontinuetocomposeatleastonesection
ofthepaperintheirinitialwriting,payingattentiononlytothecontentofthe
paperwithoutworryingabouttheformalaspects(Zamel,1983).Theydonot
spend too longona singleportion,butcontinueto type inwords, spending
a relatively short time, and always come back to these points for revision.
Thatis,theytrytorefinethepapergraduallyormakeitbetterand complete
through multiple and recursive revision instead of trying to do so instan
taneously at the initial composition stage, although one of the writers
reported that when working on a short paper he sometimes just types in
whathehasalreadycomposedinhismindfollowedbyveryfewsubstantial
revisions.
Whilecomposingusingword-processing, the professors employseveral
specific strategies. For instance, they will put a special mark, such as an
asterisk,onthescreen,insteadofreferringtoadictionary,whentheycannot
immediately find an appropriate word or phrase or feel unsatisfied with
their wording. In this way theycancomebackto the marked portions later
for revision (Zamel, 1983). This allows them to ignore surface feature
problems and deal with the more fundamental problems of content and
depth. Also, they invariably compose using a single style such as the APA
style,mechanicallychangingitinthefinaleditingtothestylerequiredbythe
specific journal they have in mind, so that the inconvenience of using an
TESLCANADAJOURNAUREVUETESLDUCANADA 21
VOL.13,NO.1,WINTER1995
unfamiliar style will not hinder the successful development of ideas. In
addition,whenevercomingupwithanewideawhilecomposingorrevising,
theyalsowriteitdownonthescreenwithaspecialmarkingsothattheycan
come back later for a decision regarding its incorporation in the paper. In
general,theyusethedelete-rather-than-addstrategyintherevisingprocess:
theytrytodeletealreadycomposedmaterialsratherthanaddingnewinfor
mationthroughmultiplerevisions,whichmeansthattheytrytoputdownas
many ideas as possible at the initial composing stage. Their multiple
revisions, all of the writers reported, are done not only on the computer
screen but also on the printouts, mainly in order to solve the problems
associatedwithcomputerwriting,asindicatedabove.
Use ofL1 in L2 Writing
NoneoftheinterviewedprofessorsreportedincorporatingL1-to-L2transla
tioninto his researchpaperwritingprocesses, that is, writeinJapanesefirst
andthentranslatethetextintoEnglish.Theseprofessionalwritersdonotuse
JapaneseoncetheyhavestartedtowriteinEnglish,althoughtheymaydoso
while brainstorming and generating ideas on the topic in the prewriting
stage(compareCumming,1989;Lay,1982).Theygenerallycontinuetothink
in English, rather than relying on Japanese; whenever they are in need of
someEnglishexpressionstoexpresstheirthoughtsaccuratelyandcannotdo
so in the process, they just write down other English expressions that ap
proximate the meaning, underlining or marking those expressions on the
computerscreen.Latertheyreturntothesepartsforrevision. AsProfessorS
putsit:
Becausethevocabularyusedinresearchpaperwritinginaspecificfield
isactuallyverylimited,itisnotevennecessarytoconsultadictionary,
althoughImighthavetodosoinothertypesofwriting.Inmanycases
readingpapersyouareplanningtoquoteandincludeinthereference
sectionwillsolvethevocabularyproblem.Therearecertainexpressions
thatareusefulandfrequentlyusedinresearchpaperwritingsuchas
"Thepurposeofthispaperisto ... and "Giventhefindings ofthis
ff
study,wecanconcludethat... Ithinkmemorizingsuchphrasessurely
ff
helpsespeciallybeginnerslikeundergraduateormaster'slevelstudents
... IwriteanEnglishpaperwhilethinkinginEnglish.Clearlyitinter
fereswithmyEnglishwritingtouseJapaneseorincorporateJapanese
into-Englishtranslation.
L1 Writing Process versus L2 Writing Process
TheinterviewdatarevealthattheseprofessionalEFLwritersfollowthesame
process and use the same strategies across L1 and L2 writing (Arndt, 1987;
Hall, 1990;Jones&Tetroe, 1987).Theygenerallyfollow thesameprocedure
eachtime theywritea researchpaperinJapanese,and thatsameprocedure
22 KAZUKOMATSUMOTO
isinturnemployedineveryEFLresearchpaper.Allthewritersreportedthat
they transfer strategies they acquired inJapanese research paperwriting to
English research paper writing. Importantly, two of the writers indicated
thatinothernonacademicwritingtaskstheymightnotusethesameproces
ses across Ll and L2 writing (compare Silva, 1992). Concerning the rela
tionshipbetweenLl and L2writing,ProfessorKsays:
IdonotthinkwritingapaperinEnglishisfundamentallydifferent
fromwritinga paperinJapanese.IhavewrittenlotsofpapersinJapa
nese,whichIfeelhavehelpedmeagreatdealtowritegoodEnglish
papers.ItseemsthatIhavelearnedcertainindispensablenonlinguistic
strategiesthatareneededtoproducecohesivewriting.Andapparently
Ihavebeensuccessfullyapplyingthoseacquiredstrategiesandknow
ledgetoEnglishresearchpaperwritingsofar. Ifeelthatthereissome
thingessentialorfundamental aboutwritingwhetheryouwritein
JapaneseorinEnglish,orprobablyinChineseorinSpanish,whichisin
dependentofspecificlanguages ...Iwanttoemphasizeherethatifyou
wanttobeagoodsecondlanguagewriter,youhavetobeagoodnative
languagewriterinthefirstplace.
Professors' Views on Writing
The professors' views on writing in Ll/L2 and writing in general were
similar.Thatis,theyviewwritingasaprocessthatisnotlinear,butrecursive
and dynamic, whereby we create ideas, meaning, and content, that is, a
process ofthinkingand creating ideas and makingour own thoughts more
accurate and precise (Zamel, 1982). Their view of writing as "the use of
language to explore beyond the known content" (Taylor, 1981, p. 4) is ex
plicitlyexpressedinProfessorT'sreport:
WheneverIfeelreluctanttowritebuthavetowriteasthedeadlineap
proaches,forexample,IjustturnonthecomputerandtypeinEnglish
wordsonthescreen. Thisisimportant. Surprisingly,themomentIdo
so,Ioftenfind newideasinstantlydevelop.Asfarasmyownexperi
encesareconcerned,thisisalsotrueofJapanesewriting.ThemomentI
writeinJapaneseusinga word-processororthemomentIputpenon
theblanksheetofpaperbeforeme,mythoughtsandideasdevelop,half
tomysurprise.Thatis,theimportantthingistotakeanaction...begin
writing,withoutworryingaboutwhetheryouwillbeabletowritewell
ornot.Itisthroughtheactofwritingthatyoucanexploreideasand
meaning.
Professors' Acquisition ofL2 Writing Skill
One ofthe commonly held views ofwriting among these professional EFL
writers is that learning to write is a skill-building activity, and therefore
TESLCANADAJOURNAUREVUETESLDUCANADA 23
VOL.13,NO.1,WINTER1995
writingabilitycanimproveasaresultofpracticewhetheronewritesinLl or
L2. Allofthemreported thatrepeatedpracticehasenabledthemtobecome
moreeffectivewriters.
Twooftheprofessorsreportedthattheyhavebeenmakingeffortstouse
a variety of "mature" constructions, that is, to produce "syntactically ma
ture," "propositionally dense" sentences that are characteristic of profes
sionalwriting,avoiding,forexample,overuseofsimplesentencesconnected
bycoordinatingconjunctionssuchasand.Inaddition,itwasrevealedthatall
thewritersemploytheedit-for-oneselfstrategy.Theyreportthattheirpapers
do not often undergo native speakers' editing before being submitted to
particularjournals;onlyoccasionallydotheydepend onnativespeakersfor
editing. The editing of the paper, that is, polishing, is usually done on the
printouts at the final stage ofthe writing process; editingis done oncethey
aresatisfiedwiththe contentofthepaper,andagainatleasta few daysora
weeklater.Theystressedtheimportanceofadelaybetweenthefirstediting
and thesecond,commentingthatsucha delaywillenablethewriters tosee
theirtextswithneweyes,beingmoredistantfrom, andthusmorecriticalof,
theirownwork.
Thewriters'secretsforhavingacquiredanative-likeL2writingskillseem
tobesummarizedinProfessorM'sself-report:
IrarelyasknativeEnglishspeakerstoeditmypaperalthoughIusedto
dosopreviously. Especially,Idonotlikemystyletobechangedbyan
otherperson's,evennativespeaker's,editing.Ihavemywayofwriting
apaperasa nonnativewriterofEnglish,andIhaveconfidenceinit.
ThisconfidenceIhaveacquiredbywritingpapers,thatis,Ibelievewrit
ingimprovesbywriting.Iviewwritingasaskillthatcanundoubtedly
improvethroughpractice.Ofcourse,writingalsoimprovesbyreading,
bypickingupusefulexpressionstobeusedinwritingandinputthem
intoyourbrainforfutureuse,wheneverpossible...Extensivereading
willalsohelpyoutoacquireafeelfora smoothflow ofinformationin
yourwriting. Oneoftheproblemswithnonnativewritingislackofthis
smoothflow ofinformation,andIknowevenmanyJapanese
professors' EFLwritinghasthisdrawback. Asentenceisitselfaperfect
lywell-formedone,butitstandssomehowindependentlyfromthepre
viousorthenextone.Inordertobeabletowriteinasmoothmanner,
youhavetowriteandreadrepeatedlyuntilyougetintuitionsfor
smoothwriting.
Conclusion
This study identifies some important secrets of professional Japanese EFL
writers' researchpaperwritingprocessesandstrategies.Thesehighlyprofi
cient L2 writers uniformly employ strategies similar to those reported in
24 KAZUKOMATSUMOTO
earlier studies to be used by skilled L1 writers and proficient ESL writers
(Sommers,1980;Stallard,1974;Zamel,1985).Further,theresultsshowedthat
they perceive the L1 writing process and the L2 counterpart as virtually
identical,employingsimilarstrategiesacross L1 andL2writingprocesses,a
fact that is also consistent with the findings of previous research (Arndt,
1987;Hall,1990;Zamel,1985).Thissuggeststhat,aspointedoutbyoneofthe
professorsinterviewed,theremustexistsomethingfundamentallycommon
to any act ofwriting, regardless ofthe language, that is, something nonlin
guistic,butcognitive-strategicthathelps writerstomeetthegoalofproduc
ingeffectiveand cohesivewriting(Taylor, 1981).2Evidently,givenprevious
research findings, it is these strategies that less proficient writers lack and
thatmaybetaughttosuchwritersthroughclassroominstruction.Ihopethat
future research will be devoted to the exploration of possible universals
underlyingbothL1 and L2writing,andpossiblyanyactofcomposing.
Notes
lInterviewingisoneoftheintrospectivemethodsthathavebeenusedtodateinL2researchto
elicitlearnerstrategiesalong withthink-aloud tasks, questionnaires, and diarykeeping. This
studyisconcernedwithnon-task-basedretrospectiveverbalself-reportdataonbothlearning
strategiesandlearners' metacognitiveknowledgeaboutL2learning(compareWenden,1991).
See Matsumoto (1993, 1994) for a detailed discussion of taxonomies of introspective
methodologiesandverbal-reportdatainL2research.AlsoseeMatsumoto(1987,1989,inpress)
for theroleofretrospectionin L2learningprocesses. Foranintroductoryaccountoflearning
strategiesresearch,whichisofcurrentinteresttoL2researchers,seeCohen(1990),O'Malleyand
Chamot(1990),Oxford(1990),Wenden(1991),orWendenandRubin(1987).
2Kaplan(1972,1983)arguesthatwritingstylevariesaccordingtolinguisticandculturalback
ground. In this study, which is concerned with the informants' perceptions of writing, not
observationorevaluationoftheirwrittenproducts,Ifoundnoevidenceofexistenceofcultural
thoughtpatternsorcontrastiverhetoricintheinterviewprotocols.Ofcoursethisdoesnotmean
thatthefourprofessorsdonothaveculturallyandlinguisticallyinfluencedstyles,and,more
over,wecouldassesstheirstylesonlybyseeingtheirwriting.Theremightalsobeapossibility
thatsuchclaimswillnotholdofsuchhighly-advancedsophisticatedEFLwritersastheinform
antsofthisstudy.Theymighthavealreadyconquered culturalbarriersthatwouldotherwise
haveproduced11-L2stylisticandperceptualvariations.
TheAuthor
Kazuko Matsumoto is an associate professor of Applied Linguistics at Aichi University of
Education, Japan (1 Hirosawa, Igaya-cho, Kariya, Aichi 448, Japan; e-mail: kzmat
[email protected]). Her research interests and publications are in both 11 and L2
research, ranging from Japanese syntax and discourse analysis to second language writing,
classroom-basedstudies,researchmethods,andlearningstrategies.
References
Arndt,V.(1987).Sixwritersinsearchoftexts:Aprotocolbasedstudyof11andL2writing.
ELTJournal,41,257-267.
Berman,R.(1994).Learners'transferofwritingskillsbetweenlanguages.TESLCanadaJournal,
12(1),29-43.
TESLCANADAJOURNAUREVUETESLDUCANADA 25
VOL.13,NO.1,WINTER1995
Bridwell,L.(1980).Revisingstrategiesintwelfthgradestudents'transactionalwriting.
ResearchintheTeachingofEnglish,14,197-222.
Case,D.(1985).Processingprofessionalwords:Personalcomputersandthewritinghabitsof
universityprofessors.CollegeCompositionandCommunication,36,317-322.
Cohen,A.(1990).Languagelearning:Insightsforlearners,teachers,andresearchers.NewYork:
NewburyHouse.
Cumming,A.(1989).Writingexpertiseandsecond-languageproficiency.LanguageLearning,
39,81-141.
Faigley,L.,& Witte,S.(1981).Analyzingrevision.CollegeCompositionandCommunication,32,
400-414.
Haas,C.(1989).Howthewritingmediumshapesthewritingprocess:Effectsofword
processingonplanning.ResearchintheTeachingofEnglish,25,181-207.
c.,
Haas, &Hays,J.R(1986).WhatdidIjustsay?Readingproblemsinwritingwiththe
machine.ResearchintheTeachingofEnglish,20,22-35.
Hall,C.(1990).Managingthecomplexityofrevisingacrosslanguages.TESOLQuarterly,24,
43-60.
Jones,S.,&Tetroe,J.(1987).Composinginasecondlanguage.InA.Matsuhashi(Ed.),Writing
inrealtime:Modellingproductionprocesses(pp.34-57).Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Kaplan,R (1972).Culturalthoughtpatternsininter-culturaleducation.InH.B.Allen&RN.
Campbell(Eds.),TeachingEnglishasasecondlanguage:Abookofreadings(2nded.,pp.
294-310).NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Kaplan,RB.(1983).Contrastiverhetorics:Someimplicationsforthewritingprocess.InA.
Freedman,1.Pringle,&J.Yalden(Eds.),Learningtowrite:Firstlanguage/secondlanguage
(pp.139-161).London:Longman.
Krapels,A.R(1990).Anoverviewofsecondlanguagewritingprocessresearch.InB.Kroll
(Ed.),Secondlanguagewriting:Researchinsightsfortheclassroom(pp.37-56).Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Lay,NDS.(1982).ComposingprocessesofadultESLlearners:Acasestudy.TESOLQuarterly,
16,406.
Lutz,J.A.(1987).Astudyofprofessionalandexperiencedwritersrevisingandeditingatthe
computerandwithpenandpaper.ResearchintheTeachingofEnglish,21,398-421.
Matsumoto,K.(1987).Diarystudiesofsecondlanguageacquisition:Acriticaloverview.
JournaloftheJapanAssociationforLanguageTeaching,9,17-34.
Matsumoto,K. (1989).AnanalysisofaJapaneseESLlearner'sdiary:FactorsinvolvedintheL2
learningprocess.JournaloftheJapanAssociationforLanguageTeaching,11,167-192.
Matsumoto,K.(1993).Verbal-reportdataandintrospectivemethodsinsecondlanguage
research:Stateoftheart.RELCJournal,24,32-60.
Matsumoto,K.(1994).Introspection,verbalreports,andsecondlanguagelearningstrategy
research.CanadianModernLanguageReview,50,363-386.
Matsumoto,K.(inpress).HelpingL2learnersreflectonclassroomlearning.ELTJournal.
O'Malley,J.M.,&Chamot,A.U.(1990).Learningstrategiesinsecondlanguageacquisition.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Oxford,RL.(1990).Languagelearningstrategies:Whateveryteachershouldknow.Englewood
Cliffs,NJ:NewburyHouse.
Perl,S.(1979).Thecomposingprocessesofunskilledwriters.ResearchintheTeachingofEnglish,
13,317-336.
Pianko,S.(1979).Adescriptionofthecomposingprocessesofcollegefreshmenwriters.
ResearchintheTeachingofEnglish,13,5-22.
Raimes,A.(1985).WhatunskilledESLstudentsdoastheywrite:Aclassroomstudyof
composing.TESOLQuarterly,19,229-258.
Silva,T.(1992).11vs.L2writing:ESLgraduatestudents'perceptions.TESLCanadaJournal,10,
27-48.
26 KAZUKOMATSUMOTO
