Typing mistakes

Errors were labelled as typing mistakes when letters were mixed or when the participants’

fingers slipped – e.g. Krebs (FLFpl): disucced (=discussed), differnent (= different);

Artilleryman (FLFpl): aubout (= about); or Gio (FLFpe): shool (= school); when words were written as one with no morphological intention of compounding – e.g. Siebenmorgen (FLFpe): Eattitudetoward (=attitude toward); or iPhone (FLFpl): oneanotherthere (= one another. There ...) – or when keys were pressed that did not make any sense at all and it may be presumed that the writers simply missed the correct key – e.g. Owlet (FLFpl):

increasingl<y (=increasingly). In some cases, the evaluation of whether an error was a

% assumption that students of English philology who passed the language test on a high level should know how to spell e.g. media correctly (instead of meadia), or how to write researcher (instead of reasercher, both Gio: FLFpe), although in both cases, one could argue for orthographic node-switches, since the chosen letter combination could be a possible variant in a more shallow orthography. Still, as in the first case the German word is written Medien, and in the latter case the vowel/vowel combination is switched, it is assumed that the incorrect spelling took place because of a failure in the coordination of the execution processes.

Whether the typing mistakes might have been triggered by key combinations which are more common in German than the correct FL ones (and in this sense were L1 related), was not further analysed. Examples for these kinds of typing mistakes would be Babs’

importanat, which might have been incensed by German words like Internat (boarding school), or Gio’s lach instead of lack (FLF), which in German would be the imperative form of laugh.

The number and the percentage of typing mistakes differ distinctly between the different planning processes and the different text types (Table 6.11). It was highest in the FLFpl, and lowest in the academic essays.

The high proportion of typing mistakes in the FLFpl was expected, since the participants’ typing was very fast (Chapter 5.4.1) and the participants were explicitly asked to ignore mistakes. In contrast to this, the high rate of typing mistakes in the FLNpl was not expected, since the participants did not write many words in the first place, and they typed more slowly. The fact that the number of typing mistakes was still so high in comparison with the other types of errors indicates that the monitoring of the typed text was rather low, and that the participants shifted most of their cognitive capacities on other aspects than orthography, which also became visible in the proportion of orthographic node-switches.

Since the plans were not revised afterwards, no corrections were made here either.

As in code-switching, there is no relevant difference in the percentages of typing mistakes between the FLNpe and the FLFpe. As a difference to node-switches, noticing typing mistakes does not seem to be influenced by the activation of FL by freewriting (see Chapter 7.5). The proportional difference between the academic essays and the SE text is

high. Because of the high typing speed in the SE, typing mistakes were more likely to occur. Obviously, the participants did not spend much cognitive capacity on monitoring orthography, and only the minority made a final revision at all (Fig. 5.5). The high rate of typing mistakes, therefore, underlines the writing-like-speaking attitude in the SE.

6.4.9 Miscellaneous

The proportion of errors in miscellaneous again differs between the texts: 16.4% in the SE, 2.78% in the FLNpl, 7.77% in the FLFpl, 10.98% in the FLNpe, 8.20% in the FLFpe. The percentage of errors in the different subcategories of miscellaneous varies between all writing processes and text types (Fig. 6.6).

Fig. 6.6 Distribution of errors in miscellaneous

In all texts, grammar is either the most dominant subcategory or one of the major subcategories in miscellaneous: SE: 58.06%, FLNpl: 100%, FLNpe: 34.76%, FLFpl: 40%

and FLFpe: 50%. Another important subcategory is punctuation with 16.13% in the SE, 54.35% in the FLNpe, and 38.89% in the FLFpe. Orthography is important in the SE (22.58%), less important in the FLFpe (11.11%), and insignificant in the FLNpe (2.17%).

The subcategory others is the major subcategory in the FLFpl (60%). In the FLNpe (8.7%) and in the SE (3.23%), it is far less important.

Examples for grammatical errors are the usage of singular forms instead of plural forms in cases like she never thinks about me having feeling (Krebs: SE); the missing conjugating -s in singular 3rd pers. verb forms: she need correctness (Krebs: SE) or the missing article in cases where an article would also have been needed in German. All of

these errors would have been errors in the L1 as well, that is, they are not L1–FL node-switches. It is rather believed that the writers in these cases were in an ‘unmotivated’ state of interlanguage, in that they simply did not activate the respective FL rules. It might also have been that, in their minds, the participants formulated already other parts of the text than the parts which they were executing, and because of this, errors slipped in.

Orthographic errors mainly occurred in words that are not frequently used or which are foreign words in the L1 and in the FL, like in Siebenmorgen’s SE caligraphy and hillarious. The missing double consonant and the superfluous double consonant might have been categorised as typing mistakes. However, when one looks for the incorrect form caligraphy in the internet, one finds 3,160,000 examples in 57 seconds [2012-06-18], that is, this orthographic error is quite popular in English writing and in German writing as well: the German incorrect Kaligraphie was found 379,000 times in 37 seconds. Because of this, one can presume that Siebenmorgen committed the error because of a lack of knowledge. The misspelled word hillarious can also be found very often in the internet (more than 4,000,000 examples in 17 seconds) – and the incorrect form is labelled as being correct in an online dictionary (http://www.linguee.com/ [2012-06-18]). Still, it cannot be excluded that the writers actually knew how to spell these words correctly, because in the academic texts, they often used vocabulary that is used even less frequently in everyday language than these examples. In the FLFpe, the higher rate of orthographic errors in others indicates that the writers were less critical with thinking about the orthography of words that they were insecure about spelling, whereas in the FLNpe the longer pausing and the slower writing processes seem to have made the participants more aware of these factors.

In the two academic essays, punctuation is the largest subcategory (FLNpe:

54.35%) or the second largest subcategory (FLFpe: 38.89%) of miscellaneous. In most of the cases, the writers overgeneralised English rules. For example, James wrote: It is impossible to say that logic principles are culture dependent [morphological node-switch]

and at the same time make use of these principles_ as they are preconditions for any form of arguing which is supposed to be rational. The missing comma after principles was – probably – left out because of the English rule that stipulates that (most of the time) no commas are set in front of a subordinate clause that is introduced with a subjunction, which is a rule that most of the students had to learn explicitly at school because these commas are compulsory in German. The clause that this rule is not universal, but depends on the sentence the subordinate is embedded in, is often not taught at school or is blended

%

out by the writers in the writing process. Since this modification of the rule depends on the complexity of the sentence – and the sentences in the academic essays had the tendency to be embedded and complex – the missing application of the rule generated these kinds of errors. The error-rate being higher in the FLNpe than in the FLFpe is an indicator of the conscious application of the false rule. In the FLFpe, the more automatic insertion of a comma in the fluent writing process (which would also be initiated by the L1 rules) worked slightly better. It is again an indicator of differences in the focus during the writing process initiated by the planning conditions.

The last subcategory – others – appears only in three of the text types. While in the SE and the FLNpe the percentage of these errors is rather low in number, in the FLFpl they make up the majority of errors in miscellaneous. Here, they commonly encompass words that the writers started to write down, substituted them with other words (or added another idea) and did not delete the word that they had begun to execute – a procedure which was actually asked for in the condition of freewriting. Also in the SE, the high writing speed and the planning-in-writing explain these kinds of errors. In the FLNpe, however, errors in others were not expected, since the processing was too slow to admit a failure of noticing incomplete words. The analysis of the writing protocols show that in some cases these errors were the result of an unintended deletion of too many letters in revision. Yet, in the slow production process, the participants should have noticed errors like this. Here, eyetracking would have helped to see whether the errors were left unnoticed, e.g. because the participants did not look at the monitor, but at other places in the process of idea generation or in consulting the source text (Wengelin et al. 2009: 338).

As in the other error categories, the analysis of the subcategories in miscellaneous shows that the writing processes and the governing of these processes differ in planning and formulating, and that the planning forms, as well as the demands of the task have a considerable effect on the linguistic factors of text production.

6.4.10 Content

Content is a category that is language independent. It describes errors in which the conveyed content is wrong, or in which it is unclear what the writer wanted to say. An example is iPhone’s statement in his FLNpe that Aristotle was a Roman, or Owlet’s discussion of a group in her FLFpe, forgetting to define the group.

The incidents of errors in content are rather low (Table 6.12) and they only occur in the academic essays. More of the

participants erred with respect to content in the FLNpe (six out of ten) than in the FLFpe.

Only Owlet made a content error exclusively in the FLFpe. All the other participants who made a content error in the FLFpe erred in the FLNpe as well.

Many of the errors were probably committed because of a certain amount of carelessness. IPhone’s transforming Aristotle into a Latin person or James’ giving Aristotle a female personal pronoun were most likely not based in their missing knowledge, since the facts about Aristotle’s nationality and about his gender may be regarded as general education and, additionally, both facts were explicitly mentioned in the source text. In iPhone’s case, one can therefore presume that he mixed “Greek” and “Latin” because they are semantic neighbours; the Greek and the Latin cultures being regarded as the two cultures that formed the foundation for today’s European culture. In James’ case, the gender error might have taken place because of an attempt to write in the ‘politically correct’ form. In German, this is often achieved by using both the female and the male form of nouns and pronouns in a text. In English, some texts solve the problem by using the female form instead of the male form. Because of this, it could be that the academic genre activated the female pronoun in James’ phonological structure, and the error slipped in unnoticed.

Still, all in all, the participants did not show problems in terms of providing correct content – whether they provided this content successfully is a different matter.

6.5 Discussion

The error analysis shows that most of the errors that occur in the FL texts, and that the participants did not notice in revision, are the results node-switches and L1 influence. The moment of the influences and the strengths of these influences differ in the text types – in the simple text, in the plans and in the proper essays – as well as after the methods used for planning. That is, the number of errors depends on the cognitive demands of the task. In the SE, the smallest number of errors per word was found; in the FLNpl, where the number of words is rather low and the participants were slow in executing, the number of errors per word is distinctly higher. Here, the usage of the L1 as a productive method of dealing with the cognitive demands of generating ideas and planning an academic text, proved to be an obstacle in terms of FL performance. In all academic texts, the number of errors is higher than in the SE, which shows that the higher demands on content provision and structuring, the adding of the academic register and the simulation of a test situation added a stress factor on the writing processes, which resulted in a higher usage of the L1.

The analysis of the numbers of errors per participant shows that the different planning methods had an individually different effect on the writers. One group of participants benefited from the higher activation of FL through freewriting, whereas the second group performed better in the FLNpe. It might be that the division of the group mirrors the different planning types (Boehm 1993): for the writers who are used to generating text structure during the writing process, planning through freewriting was an effective method, and they could concentrate more thoroughly on linguistic aspects in the essays than the writers who need to have a strict and more concise plan before they start to formulate their thoughts elaborately.

The varying distribution of errors in the subcategories of the node-switch categories also proves that the writers employed their cognitive capacities differently in the various task environments. There are always differences between the plans and the final texts, which, inter alia, is a result of the lack of revision of the plans, and in the case of the FLFpl, a consequence of the assignment. Still, the proportional differences between planning and final essays prove that in planning, writers concentrate on different elements and aspects of language than in writing the texts to be evaluated. In the more fluent writing processes of freewriting and FLFpe, certain linguistic rules were activated less effectively than was done in the slow and pause-interspersed writing of notes and vice versa. The interfaces from the conceptual structure to the FL structures, between the FL and L1 structures and in between the FL structures are not employed in the same way in the different tasks or planning conditions. As a result, some subcategories do not show any L1-influence in some task environments, whereas the L1-L1-influence is large in others.

These differences in the proportional distributions of the errors in the different (sub)categories give evidence for the thesis that linguistic information is stored to a great extent in the form of rules (Jackendoff 2002: 182). Depending on the methods used, the rules are activated differently; for example, the rules for the correct usage of articles work more appropriately after note-taking than after freewriting. This could be the result of (a) differences with respect to how these rules were taught and learned (implicitly or explicitly), (b) differences in the profoundness of the learned rules, or (c) differences in the ways they are stored – whether they are stored more superficially or more deeply. Because of these factors, the writers applied L1 rules in the formulation process in some conditions and did not do so in other conditions, and they were not able to discern the node-switches in the revision processes, respectively (see the following chapter).

In some error categories, one can also see that the academic genre did not have the exclusive effect of posing an extra cognitive demand on the writers, but that the participants also applied L1 genre features on the FL texts. For example, the errors in sentence construction and in punctuation node-switches are the result of L1 rhetorical structures in the FL texts. In this way, the linguistic L1 influence is encouraged by the influence of the application of – obsolete – L1 genre characteristics. The extra demand of writing in a foreign – that is, academic – language in the foreign language lowered the borders between the L1 and FL structures, and – as will be shown in the following chapter – the monitoring did not perceive this L1 influence. This might have been the effect of a subconscious strategy of using L1 – not only in FL planning but also in FL essay writing – in order to be able to generate a text in a certain amount of time; and it indicates that, for the participants, other elements of the writing process were more central to the monitoring than language accuracy.

7. Revisions

As was shown in Chapters 5 and 6, fluency, productivity and the number as well as the types of errors in the final texts vary distinctly between the simple and the academic texts and between planning and essay writing. In the following, the extent is presented to which the text changes and revisions that were performed by the participants differ in the different conditions. The average number of revisions, the number of characters that were executed without revisions (Chapter 7.1), the types of revisions made (Chapter 7.2), and the types of ‘double revisions’ (Chapter 7.3) are analysed. The kinds of revisions in the different writing processes – that is in planning, in formulating or in the final revision – are examined in Chapters 7.4–7.6. Finally, it is looked at which revisions were performed in r-bursts and how these revisions had an effect on fluency (Chapter 7.7).

It was assumed that, due to the different cognitive demands set by the writing processes and set by the different assignments, the participants would concentrate on different aspects under the different task conditions. It was also assumed that in FL writing, the participants would focus more on linguistic aspects than in L1 writing, because in the latter the formulating process worked more fluently, and it was shown in Chapter 6.1 that the L1N and the L1F still showed a high number of grave language errors. Since the slower performance in FL writing indicates that the participants perceived a certain amount of difficulties that were set in language problems, it was presumed that revisions regarding this aspect would frequently occur.