Research design

The research design draws on a mixed-methods approach that was chosen for pragmatic rather than paradigmatic reasons: I.e. commensurable methods/approaches are brought together in light of a 'research problem’, rather than as a stance toward a particular epistemological debate (cf. Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2012). Drawing on keystroke logging software called Inputlog (Leijten

& Van Waes, 2013) and a socio-semiotic theory of language (Systemic Functional Linguistics), the design aims to explore and understand how two successful 2^nd year undergraduates compose academic texts via digital means. To accomplish this, the design moves from discovery (data recording and coding (discovery) to quantification (corpus analysis (quantification) to explication (discourse analysis (explication) and, finally, to discussion (revelation). This sequential application of methods is known to work well for highly conventionalized texts such as the undergraduate essay (Nesi & Gardner, 2012).

5.2.1 The role of Keystroke logging

In terms of revision mechanics, the study draws on Keystroke logging (KSL) software called 'Inputlog'⁵. Inputlog is computer software designed to run on Windows (Leijten & Van Waes, 2013); it records inputs made by a user (e.g., key presses), and logs these inputs against a time stamp. This study uses Inputlog to examine the frequencies of revisions, their position within the text, the writers' movements between points of interest (focus events), and the language features they attend to when they compose text and draw on digital sources. By using such software, data collection can be unobtrusive, non-reactive⁶, and detailed. Such a data collection method, then, can improve ecological validity because we can collect data on a subject's habits in a naturalised setting, such as at their home, in a library, or wherever they would normally work on a computer.

5 Inputlog is freely available to researchers via: http://www.Inputlog.net/

6 There is no need for an observer to be present.

76 However, because this data primarily reflects externalised processes there are no recourse to the thoughts of the writer, before, during, or after text production. Consequently, it is popular to use additional data collection methods in combination with KSL, such as think aloud protocols, eye and pen tracking, video observations, post-task interviews, etc. (cf. Torrance et al., 2012, for a collection of studies). However, it was thought that any additional layering of data may have distracted from the main aim of providing a linguistic-based analysis of revision activity.

Furthermore, as outlined in §2.4, research seeking to analyse unfolding written text in any terms other than syntax or morphology lacks a firm theoretical framework upon which analysis can draw. Consequently, the decision to not include any additional data collection methods was also a pragmatic one that aimed to narrow the focus of any design. However, as with any data collection method, there are limitations to using KSL. Yet, rather than discuss these here, I have chosen to include them under the overall study's limitations in Chapter 9, §9.3.

Furthermore, while a number of KSL programs are available (cf. Van Waes, Leijten, Wengelin, &

Lindgren, 2012), I chose Inputlog because: (1) It logs processes within MS Windows (including applications accessed); (2) it functions with MS Word (the most popular word processor); (3) it is being continually developed and is increasingly; (4) its detailed level of recording means that a number of perspectives can be explored (cf. Leijten & Van Waes, 2013); and (5) Inputlog can generate analysis files that can help 'reconstruct' the process aspect of written text; i.e. it can help to transform a 'synoptic text' to a 'dynamic text', as outlined in §5.7.2.

5.2.2 The role of linguistic theory

In terms of text analysis, this study draws on Systemic Functional Linguistics (or SFL). Although I could have chosen any number of analytical frameworks—as do others when examining academic writing (e.g. Ken Hyland, Douglas Biber, etc.)—SFL offers, as will be shown, a more robust and adaptable framework within which to draw connections between products and processes, and is thus more commensurable with my research aims. More specifically, SFL privileges the relationship between language form and (con)textual meaning, encompasses explicit analytical constructs that allow this relationship to be projected on to developmental sequences at all levels of structure; it is also a (strong) theory about language as social process and a detailed descriptive framework that allows the systematic and detailed recording of language patterns, such as those outlined on Chapter 3 and 4.

SFL is a social-constructivist view of language that sees grammar as semogenic: 'a system that creates meaning' (Halliday, 2009, p.60). Its overarching principle is the concept of meaning potential, where language is a making resource rather than a set of rules. This meaning-making potential is said to stem from (or be reflected in) five hierarchies and four

77 complementarities, along which researchers/theorists may align themselves depending upon their particular concern(s) or focus. These hierarchies and complementarities are described in numerous publications (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2013; Halliday & Webster, 2014), yet they all draw on the five key tenets that underlie SFL's views on language. Therefore, rather than replicate these discussions here, we will instead focus on these five key tenets, beginning with the metafunctional organization of language.

5.2.2.1 Metafunctions

SFL sees language as a semiotic system that is organized metafunctionally. This belief is based on the idea that language has evolved four simultaneous functions with which to: (1) Construe experience or our naturalized reality (language as representation), (2) construe logical relations between entities, figures, or meanings (language as iteration), and (3) enact personal and social relationships (language as exchange). These functions are called the experiential, logical, and interpersonal, respectively. Language, however, has also evolved a fourth function. The purpose of this metafunction is to map the experiential (language as reflection), logical (language as iteration), and interpersonal (language as action) functions on to one another and on to the context in which language is being used. This fourth function is called the textual metafunction.

In very basic terms, the textual metafunction has evolved 'in response to the needs of dialogue and narrative' (Halliday, 1975, p.58), such that '[t]he speaker can put any spin (interpersonal) on any topic (experiential) at any discursive moment (textual)—and keep the story going along indefinitely (logical)' (Halliday, 2009, p.72).

5.2.2.2 Realization

The 2nd tenet concerns text and social context, which are said to be dialogically tied via realization across abstract layers (or strata) of language. This two way dialogue both construes and activates the level above/below. Realization is thus a chain of redundancy, as information at lower levels is inherently present in upper levels, albeit at a more gestalt level of detail. SFL’s stratification of language builds on Hjelmslev's classic conception of realisation by incorporating additional strata to account for what is seen as 'natural' (non-conventional) and 'arbitrary' (conventional) relationships within and between content and expression planes, as per figure 5.2:

78 Register

Discourse semantics

Lexicogrammar

Phonology/

graphology Phonetics/

symbols

Context

Content

Expression Realization

(construes)

Realization (activates)

Figure 5.2: SFL's stratification of language The 'highest' or most abstract layer is context. SFL models context as a connotative semiotic system, whilst language (the content plane) is denotative—it is expressive of context. The strata referred to as 'register' is often defined as the manifestation of skewed probabilities in the content plane that arise in given contexts (cf. Chapter 3 for more detail), whereas the content plane is said to consist of layers of wordings (lexicogrammar) and discourse (semantics). It is in the content plane, then, that written language is realized both grammatically and semantically, and it is within this plane that the analysis in the following chapters focuses on. More specifically, the majority of the analysis is situated at the lexicogrammatical layer.

5.2.2.3 Rank scale

The 3rd tenet concerns constituency (or the unit of analysis). Constituency is associated to the 2^nd tenet (realization) via a rank scale. This relationship is portrayed in table 5.1:

79

Table 5.1. Constituency (or rank scale of analysis) In table 5.1 we have the content and expression planes of language in the left column (the smaller two circles⁷ from figure 5.2). The (1) and (2) next to phonology and graphology denote the two main physical manifestations of language that are typically examined in SFL research⁸. The right column lists the corresponding unit of analysis (or rank scale) by which either content (meaning) or expression (phonology/graphology) can be construed/activated. In this thesis we are concerned with meaning (or language functions), and therefore, we will be looking at rank level units within the content plane, rather than concerning ourselves with graphological realizations (e.g. sentences), which is the focus of much writing process research.

The most extensive unit of meaning is situated at the upper edge of the semantic stratum, and is called the 'text'. The most extensive unit of wording is situated at the upper edge of the lexicogrammatical stratum, and is called the clause (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2013, p.660). Texts (situated at the semantic stratum) are seen as meaning-making potentials, activated by cognition and context, which construes/activates the socio-semiotic environment (context) for those involved. A text can be made up of any number of units below it. For example, a single word such as 'hello' construes a 'text'—it has meaning-making potential for those involved in a given context.

In this thesis, we are primarily concerned with lexicogrammar, and as such the units of analysis are situated alongside it in table 5.1: clause-complex~clause~group/phrase~word~ morpheme.

7 The realisation circles reduce in size so as to reflect the fact that the unit of analysis reduces in size; i.e.

higher level patterns are constitutive of lower level patterns.

8 There are other means of expressing language, such as sign language, for example, but here focus on the two main forms analysed in SFL research.