Pauses during a writing process in two typologically different languages
Abstract
This study investigates how pausing behaviour within a writing session is associated with the writer's language proficiency, focusing on Finnish and Swedish as both first language (L1) and learner language (L2). The data were collected through keyboard logging software and evaluated using CEFR-based assessments of the resulting texts. The relationship was analysed using ordinal mixed-effects logistic regression modelling, where proficiency is modelled as a function of various variables related to pausing behaviour. The results show that the L2 writing process reflects the writer's proficiency. However, there is a significant difference between L2 writers of Swedish and L2 writers of Finnish compared to L1 writers. The advanced L2 writers of Swedish behave similarly to the L1 Swedish writers. In contrast, even the most advanced L2 writers of Finnish have pause lengths and linguistic contexts that are more similar to the less advanced L2 writers than the L1 writers. In addition, the pauses between words do not indicate any clear proficiency-related patterning, leaving only within-word pauses as a robust indicator of proficiency, especially in Swedish. Unlike most writing process research, this study's parallel design allows for contrasting two typologically diverging languages while controlling for other contextual variables. Future studies could explore the grammatical nature of pause locations across the analysed languages.
- Journal
- Journal of Writing Research
- Published
- 2025-02-01
- DOI
- 10.17239/jowr-2025.16.03.03
- CompPile
- Search in CompPile ↗
- Open Access
- OA PDF Diamond
- Topics
- Export
- BibTeX RIS
Citation Context
Cited by in this index (0)
No articles in this index cite this work.
Cites in this index (0)
No references match articles in this index.
Related Articles
-
Computers and Composition Jun 2026“Article laundry” or “tutor in pocket?”: Multilingual writers’ generative AI-assisted writing in professional settings ↗Qianqian Zhang-Wu
-
Assessing Writing Apr 2026How do L2 writing subskills interact hierarchically? Insights from diagnostic classification models ↗Farshad Effatpanah; Hamdollah Ravand; Mahmoud Abdi Tabari; Yi-Hsin Chen; Olga Kunina-Habenicht
-
Assessing Writing Apr 2026Unveiling the complex interactions of mindset, emotions, and self-regulated learning in EFL writing: A latent profile and network analysis ↗Jialing Sun; Lin Sophie Teng; Qikai Wang
-
Assessing Writing Apr 2026How writing prompts influence analytic trait scores: A differential feature functioning analysis for English language learners ↗İdil Sayın; Hacer Hande Uysal
-
Assessing Writing Apr 2026Pursuing fair writing assessment: Halo effects in primary school foreign language writing in grade six ↗Ruth Trüb; Julian Lohmann; Jens Möller; Stefan D. Keller