Returning to the text
in addition to corrective revision, expanding resources in Portuguese as a Foreign Language through rewriting
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34624/ro.v0i5.40676Keywords:
Revision, Rewriting, Correction, Reformulation, Choices.Abstract
Textual revision activates the correction component, to reduce the number of inaccuracies present in the final text, and reformulative rewriting, through new discursive choices. This article presents a study that aimed to analyse the ability of Chinese learners of Portuguese as a Foreign Language (PFL) to self-revise their written texts, focusing on both linguistic correction and reformulative rewriting. The study involved B2 level Chinese university students, who took part in a text production activity divided into two phases: drafting the initial version and returning to the text for self-revision, without prior feedback from the teacher. The instructions encouraged students to improve their texts either by correcting mistakes or by rewriting linguistic units. The revision operations were analysed, considering the dimensions of correction and discursive reformulation, as well as the success or failure in terms of the linguistic outcome of the operations. The results show that around two thirds of the operations focused on originally correct passages, highlighting the use of reformulative rewriting as a strategy for exploring linguistic-discursive alternatives. The operations carried out showed a high degree of success, both in correcting errors and in maintaining correctness in reformulated passages. However, new errors were also introduced, especially in lexical substitutions that required attention to combinatorial properties and verb regency. The conclusion is that self-revision contributes to correcting the text and can also be intentionally aimed at activating linguistic reformulation mechanisms, promoting the broadening of learners' discursive resources.
References
Abadikhah, S. & Yasami, F. (2014). Comparison of the Effects of Peer- versus Self-editing on Linguistic Accuracy of Iranian EFL Students. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 20(3), 113-124.
Almasi, E. & Tabrisi, A. R. N. (2016). The effects of direct vs. indirect corrective feedback on iranian efl learners' writing accuracy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(1), 74-85.
Asp, E. (2013). The twin paradoxes of unconscious choice and unintentional agents: what neurosciences say about choice and agency in action and language. In L. Fontaine, T. Bartlett & G. O’Grady (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring choice (pp. 161-178). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.011.
Barbeiro, L. (1999). Os alunos e a expressão escrita: Consciência metalinguística e expressão escrita. Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
Barbeiro, L. (2001). Profundidade do Processo de Escrita. Educação & Comunicação, 5, 64-76.
Barbeiro, L. (2019a). Escrita: Tecer e esculpir o texto. Letras de Hoje, 54(2), 221-230. https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-7726.2019.2.32354.
Barbeiro, L. (2019b). Aprender Língua Portuguesa: Do mar de possibilidades aos rochedos de incorreções. In A. Ferreira, C. Morais, M. Brasete & R. Coimbra (eds.), Pelos Mares da Língua Portuguesa 4 (pp. 453-470). UA Editora.
Barbeiro, L. (2021a). Reescrita focada: Superação de incorreções por aprendentes chineses de PLE a partir de correção indireta. Rotas a Oriente. Revista de estudos sino-portugueses, 1, 229-248. https://doi.org/10.34624/ro.v0i1.26214.
Barbeiro, L. (2021b). Estratégia de reescrita focada: Da correção à transformação do conhecimento na aprendizagem de Português Língua Estrangeira (PLE). In J. A. Castellanos-Pazos, J. Neto, & A. Huback (orgs.), Anais do I Congresso de Português como Língua Estrangeira na Columbia University (pp. 109-125). Columbia University. https://www.lrc.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/20220228-ANAIS-I-Congresso-PLE-Columbia-University.pdf.
Barbeiro, L. (2021c). Níveis de proficiência na perspetiva das incorreções. In C. Morais, G. Zhiyan, J. Rangel, A. Ferreira, M. Brasete, R. Mai & R. Coimbra (eds.), Diálogos Interculturais Portugal-China 2: Literaturas, artes e línguas em diálogo (pp. 337-355). Instituto Internacional de Macau / Instituto Confúcio da Universidade de Aveiro.
Barbeiro, L. (2022). O desafio da correção: grau de consecução ao escrever novamente o texto. In C. Araújo, C. Falcão, P. Fernandes, A. Monte, A. Rodrigues, J. Sousa & C. Teixeira (eds.), LUSOCONF2022 – IV Encontro Internacional de Língua Portuguesa e Relações Lusófonas: Livro de atas (pp. 71-80). Instituto Politécnico de Bragança.
Barbeiro, L. (2023a). A frase como mar de escolhas para aprender a escrever. In V. W. Pereira, L. F. Barbeiro, R. Guaresi & K. Forneck (orgs.), Ensino da compreensão leitora e da produção escrita: Unidades linguísticas em interação com foco na frase (pp. 60-84). Editora Fonema e Grafema.
Barbeiro, L. (2023b). Reescrita: O potencial dos textos catalisadores. Rotas a Oriente. Revista de estudos sino-portugueses, 3, 181-197. https://doi.org/10.34624/ro.v0i3.31912.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004.
Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
Bock, Z. (2016). Multimodality, creativity and children’s meaning-making: Drawings, writings, imaginings. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 49, 1-21.
Breuer, E. (2017). Revision Processes in First Language and Foreign Language Writing: Differences and Similarities in the Success of Revision. Journal of Academic Writing, 7(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v7i1.214.
Britton, J. (1994). Shaping at the point of the utterance. In R. Young & Y. Liu (orgs.), Landmark essays on rhetorical invention in writing (pp. 147-152). Routledge.
Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were... System, 37(4), 600-613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.005.
Conselho da Europa. (2001). Quadro Europeu Comum de Referência para as Línguas: Aprendizagem, Ensino, Avaliação. Asa.
Council of Europe. (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment – Companion volume with new descriptors. www.coe.int/lang.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Ekanayaka, W. & Ellis, R. (2020). Does asking learners to revise add to the effect of written corrective feedback on L2 acquisition? System, 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102341.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes, a response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6.
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime...?). Journal of Response to Writing, 13(1), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490.
Ganji, M. (2009). Teacher-correction, Peer-correction and Self-correction: Their Impacts on Iranian Students’ ELTS Essay Writing Performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 6(1), 117-139.
Gouveia, C. (2009). Texto e Gramática: Uma Introdução à Linguística Sistémico-Funcional. Matraga, 16(24), 13-47.
Granger, S. (2008). Learner corpora. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook (vol. 1, pp. 259-275). Walter de Gruyter.
Halliday, M. A. K (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy and learning: A multimodal approach. Routledge.
Karim, K. & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519-539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469.
Kellogg, R. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1.
Kim, Y. & Emeliyanova, L. (2021). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 234-255.
Li, A. & Herbert, M. (2023). Unpacking an online peer‑mediated and self‑reflective revision process in second‑language persuasive writing. Reading and Writing, 37, 1545-1573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10466-8.
Mao, Z. & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. System, 45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100469.
Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse. Continuum.
Mohebbi, H. (2021). 25 years on, the written error correction debate continues: An interview with John Truscott. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-021-00110-9.
Mowlaie, B. (2014). The Effect of Teacher-Feedback, Peer-Feedback, and Self-Revision on Iranian EFL Learners’ Form and Content Revision. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 37-57.
Mujtaba, S., Reynolds, B., Parkash, R. & Singh, M. (2021). Individual and collaborative processing of written corrective feedback affects second language writing accuracy and revision. Assessing Writing, 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100566.
O’Donnell, M. (2013). A dynamic view of choice in writing: Composition as text evolution. In L. Fontaine, T. Bartlett & G. O’Grady (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring choice (pp. 247-266). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.016.
Poorebrahim, F. (2017). Indirect written corrective feedback, revision, and learning. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 184-192.
Ramirez Balderas, I. & Guillen Cuamatzi, P. M. (2018). Self and peer correction to improve college students’ writing skills. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 20(2), 179-194. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v20n2.67095.
Rose, D. & Martin, J.R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox.
Sudarmaji, I. & Lifanie, M. (2020). A Comparison Study: Teacher, Peer and Self-Feedback on Students Essay Writing. Journal of Indonesian Student Assessment and Evaluation, 6(2), 168-180.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 337-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.05.002.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
Truscott, J. (2020). The Efficacy of written corrective feedback: A critique of a meta-analysis. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341453398.
Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305.
Vuogan, A. & Li, S. (2023). Examining the Effectiveness of Peer Feedback in Second Language Writing: A Meta-Analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 57(4), 1115-1138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3178.
Downloads
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain copyright.
Creative Commons License: Attribution 4.0 International.
