مطالعه فرآیندهای ویراست و بازبینی هنگام نگارش گونه‌های مختلف متن

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دپارتمان زبان انگلیسی، عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران جنوب

2 دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم تحقیقات

چکیده

پژوهش‌های بیشماری در زمینه مهارت نوشتن این واقعیت را نشان می‌دهد که هنگام ساخت گفتمان نوشتاری نویسنده از همان ابتدا به یک انشای نغز دست نمی‌یابد، بلکه هنگام نگارش وی می‌بایست از فرآیندهای مختلفی عبور کند تا این امر تحقق یابد. هدف این تحقیق مقایسه دو فرآیند نهان ویراست و بازبینی هنگام نگارش چهار گونه نوشتار آکادمیک می‌باشد. بدین منظور، پژوهشگران سه پرسش تحقیق بیان کردند و رویه‌نمای بلند-اندیشی را که در آن مشارکین افکار خود را هنگام انجام درسکارهای نگارش به طور شفاهی بیان می‌نمودند برای استخراج داده اتخاذ کردند. شازده نفر مشارک از میان دانش‌آموختگان کارشناسی ارشد زبان انگلیسی به صورت هدفمند انتخاب شدند. دادهها سپس به طریق رویّه سه مرحلهای نظریه داده-بنیاد مورد بررسی و تحلیل محتوا قرار گرفتند .نتایج بررسیها دو فرآیند ویراست و بازبینی را به پیش‌فرآیندهای مختلفی طبقه‌بندی نمود شامل درجگذاری، خط زدگی، جایگزینی، فراگذاری، دگرنویسی و غلط گیری. این پژوهش بر اهمیت فرآیندهای ویراست و بازبینی در آموزش نگارش آکادمیک به زبان‌آموزان به عنوان مهمترین استنتاج آموزشی خود تاکید می‌ورزد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating Editing and Revision Processes Involved in Writing Different Text Genres

نویسندگان [English]

  • Alireza Ameri 1
  • Zahra Pourniksefat 2
1 English Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literature, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch
2 دانشکده ادبیات و زبانهای خارجی
چکیده [English]

The plethora of research thus far conducted on writing proficiency reveals the fact that in construction of written discourse, writers do not attain a well-written composition from its inception. They, nonetheless, undergo different recursive processes which are transpired during composition. The purpose of this qualitative research was to explore the processes of editing and revision which were involved in writing four academic text genres. To this end, the researchers proposed three research questions and employed think-aloud protocol through which the participants needed to verbalize all their thought processes while performing the composition tasks. The collected data, then, went through content analysis based on a three-step procedure proposed in grounded theory. The results offered four main processes of planning, formulating, evaluating, and reformulating. The editing and revision processes were then subdivided into different sub-processes of insertion, deletion, substitution, transposition, rephrasing and correction. The research highlights the significance of editing and revision processes in teaching academic writing, as its main pedagogical implication.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Academic Writing
  • Composing Processes
  • Editing
  • Revision
  • Think-aloud protocol
Allal, L., & Chanquoy, L. (2004). Revision revisited. In Allal, A., Chanquoy, L,. & Largy, P (Eds.), Revision cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 1-7). New York: Springer

American Psychological Associations. (2010) Publication manual of the American psychological association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Bawarshi, A. S., &  Reiff, M. J. (2010).  Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and Pedagogy. USA: WAC Clearinghouse.

Bowles, M. A. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York: Routledge.

Bruce, I. (2008). Academic writing and genre: A systematic analysis. New York: Continuum.

Cook, V. (2002). Background to the L2 users. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portrait of L2 learners (pp.1-28). UK: Multilingual Matters.

Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis. (pp.219-228). London: Routledge.

Elbow, P. (1998). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. New York: Oxford University Press.

Elbow, P. (2000). Everyone can write: Essays toward a hopeful theory of writing and teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. London: Cambridge.

Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College composition and communication, 32: 400-414.

Ferguson, G. (2007). The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: Questions of equity, access and domain loss. Ibérica, 13: 7-38.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 32: 365-387.

Fulwiler, T. (2002). College writing: A personal approach to academic writing. USA: Heinemann.

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. London: Routledge.

Huckin, T. (2001). Abstracting from abstracts. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context: implications and applications (pp. 93-103). University of Birmingham Press.

Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.

Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and researching writing. UK: Pearson Education.

Hasrati, M., & Gheitury, A. (2010). A genre analysis of Persian research article abstracts: communicative moves and author identity. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 2: 47-74.

Janssen, D., van Waes, L., & van den Bergh, H. (1996). Effects of thinking aloud on writing processes. In C. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.). The science of writing: Theories, individual differences, and applications (pp. 233-250). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Khany, R., & Tazik, K. (2010). A comparative study of introduction and discussion sections of sub-disciplines of applied linguistics research articles. Journal of applied language studies, 1: 97-122

Koro-Ljungberg, M., Douglas, E., McNeill, N., Therriault, D., & Malcolm, Z. (2012). Re-conceptualizing and de-centering think-aloud methodology in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1-19. doi: 10.1177/1468794112455040

Marefat, H., & Mohammadzadeh, S. (2013). Genre analysis of literature research article abstracts: A cross-linguistic, cross-cultural study. Applied Research on English Language, 2: 37-50.

Myhill, D., & Jones, S. (2007). More than just error correction: Students’ perspectives on their revision processes during writing. Written Communication. 43, 323-343, doi: 10.1177/0741088307305976

Myskow, G., & Gordon, K. (2009). A focus on purpose: Using a genre approach in an EFL writing class. ELT journal, 64: 283-292. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccp057

Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. In L. M. Given (Ed.) The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 697-8). USA: Sage.

Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3): 407-430

Richards, J. C., & Miller, S. K. (2005). Doing academic writing in education: Connecting the personal and the professional. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & Van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 50-77). UK: Multilingual Matters.

Seow, A. (2002). The writing process and process writing. In J. C. Richard, & W.A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 315-320). UK: Cambridge University Press

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. USA: Sage.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. USA: University of Michigan Press.

Swales, J. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission Letter. In L. J. Mey, H. Parret, & J. Verschueren (Eds.) Practicing and beyond new series (pp. 45-58). The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Swales, J. (2009). Worlds of genre—Metaphors of genre. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, & D.  Figueiredo (Eds.), Genre in a changing world (pp. 3-16). USA: WAC Clearinghouse

Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2010). From text to task: Putting research on abstracts to work. In M. F. Ruiz-Garrido, J. C. Palmer-Silveira, & I. Fortanet-Gómez (Eds.), English for professional and academic purpose (pp. 167-180).

Vinay, J.-P., & Darbelnet, J. (1958). A Methodology for Translation. [An excerpt from Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation, trans. and eds. J. C. Sager & M.-J. Hamel, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995, first published in 1958 as Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Méthode de traduction] In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 84–93). London: Routledge.

White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process Writing. Essex: Longman.