Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pauses in written composition: on the importance of where writers pause

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Much previous research has conceptualized pauses during writing as indicators of the engagement of higher-level cognitive processes. In the present study 101 university students composed narrative or argumentative essays, while their key logging was recorded. We investigated the relation between pauses within three time intervals (300–999, 1000–1999, and >2000 ms), at different text boundaries (i.e., between words, sentences, and paragraphs), genre (i.e., narrative vs. argumentative), and transcription fluency (i.e., typing speed). Moreover, we investigated the relation between pauses and various lexical characteristics of essays (e.g., word frequency, sentence length) controlling for transcription fluency and genre. In addition to replicating a number of previously reported pause effects in composition, we also show that pauses are related to various aspects of writing, regardless of transcription fluency and genre. Critically our results show that the majority of pause effects in written composition are modulated by pause location. For example, increased pause rates at word boundaries predicted word frequency, while pause rates at sentence boundaries predicted sentence length, suggesting different levels of processing at these text boundaries. Lastly, we report some inconsistencies when using various definitions of pauses. We discuss potential mechanisms underlying effects of pauses at different text boundaries on writing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. log10(X + .5) was used when there were zero values.

References

  • Alamargot, D., Dansac, C., Chesnet, D., & Fayol, M. (2007). Parallel processing before and after pauses: A combined analysis of graphomotor and eye movements during procedural text production. In G. Rijlaarsdam, M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Studies in writing. Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Vol. 20, pp. 13–29). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alves, R. A., Castro, S. L., de Sousa, L., & Stromqvist, S. (2007). Influence of typing skill on pause–execution cycles in written composition. In Rijlaarsdam, G. (Series Ed.) M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Volume Eds.), Writing and Cognition: Research and Applications. Studies in writing (Vol. 20, pp. 55–65). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Alves, R. A., Castro, S. L., & Olive, T. (2008). Execution and pauses in writing narratives: Processing time, cognitive effort and typing skill. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 969–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alves, R. A., & Limpo, T. (2015). Progress in written language bursts, pauses, transcription, and written composition across schooling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 374–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baaijen, V. M., Galbraith, D., & de Glopper, K. (2012). Keystroke analysis: Reflections on procedures and measures. Written Communication, 29, 246–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). Celex2. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauvais, C., Olive, T., & Passerault, J. M. (2011). Why are some texts good and others not? Relationship between text quality and management of the writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 415–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brizan, D. G., Goodkind, A., Koch, P., Balagani, K., Phoha, V. V., & Rosenberg, A. (2015). Utilizing linguistically enhanced keystroke dynamics to predict typist cognition and demographics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 82, 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenu, F., Pellegrino, F., Jisa, H., & Fayol, M. (2014). Interword and intraword pause threshold in writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2014). Pauses in spontaneous written communication: A keystroke logging study. Journal of Writing Research, 6, 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, V., Campbell, S., MacLean, M., & Barnes, J. (2006). Contribution of lower order skills to the written composition of college students with and without dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 175–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, V., Dockrell, J. E., & Barnett, J. (2005). The slow handwriting of undergraduate students constrains overall performance in exam essays. Educational Psychology, 25, 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Understanding expert ratings of essay quality: Coh-Metrix analyses of first and second language writing. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 21, 170–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The role of cohesion, readability, and lexical difficulty. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, S. A., Weston, J., McLain Sullivan, S. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28, 282–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deane, P., & Quinlan, T. (2010). What automated analyses of corpora can tell us about students’ writing skills. Journal of Writing Research, 2, 151–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayol, M. (1999). From on-line management problems to strategies in written composition. In M. Torrance & G. Jeffery (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing: Processing capacity and working memory effects in text production (pp. 13–23). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foulin, J. N. (1998). To what extent does pause location predict pause duration in adults’ and children’s writing? Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 17, 601–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilhooly, K. J., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age of acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity and ambiguity measures for 1944 words. Behaviour Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12, 395–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40, 223–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, L., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Predicting human judgments of essay quality in both integrated and independent second language writing samples: A comparison study. Assessing Writing, 18, 218–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, C. (1989). How the writing medium shapes the writing process: Effects of word processing on planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 181–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Immonen, S. (2011). Unravelling the processing units of transcription. Across Languages and Cultures, 12, 235–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and application (pp. 57–71). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (1999). Components of working memory in text production. In M. Torrance & G. Jeffery (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing: Processing capacity and working memory effects in text production (pp. 43–61). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. American Journal of Psychology, 114, 175–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacruz, I., Denkowski, M., & Lavie, A. (2014). Cognitive demand and cognitive effort in post-editing. In Proceedings of the third workshop on post-editing technology and practice (ATMA), pp. 73–84.

  • Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30, 358–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems? Memory & Cognition, 23, 767–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maggio, S., Lété, B., Chenu, F., Jisa, H., & Fayol, M. (2012). Tracking the mind during writing: immediacy, delayed, and anticipatory effects on pauses and writing rate. Reading and Writing, 25, 2131–2151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malvern, D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Duran, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 113–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D., Covill, A., Hoyne, S. H., & Mildes, K. (1994). Individual differences in writing: Implications of translating fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 256–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKee, G., Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2000). Measuring vocabulary diversity using dedicated software. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 15, 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Medimorec, S., Pavlik, P. I., Jr., Olney, A., Graesser, A. C., & Risko, E. F. (2015). The language of instruction: Compensating for challenge in lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 971–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medimorec, S., & Risko, E. F. (2016). Effects of disfluency in writing. British Journal of Psychology, 107, 625–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medimorec, S., Young, T. P., & Risko, E. F. (2017). Disfluency effects on lexical selection. Cognition, 18, 28–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olinghouse, N. G., Santangelo, T., & Wilson, J. (2012). Examining the validity of single occasion, single-genre, holistically-scored writing assessments. In E. Van Steendam, M. Tillema, G. Rijlaarsdam, & H. Van den Bergh (Eds.), Measuring writing. Recent insights into theory, methodology and practices (pp. 55–82). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olive, T., Alves, R. A., & Castro, S. L. (2009). Cognitive processes in writing during pause and execution periods. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 758–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olive, T., & Cislaru, G. (2015). Linguistic forms at the process-product interface: Analyzing the linguistic content of bursts of production. In G. Cislaru (Ed.), Writing(s) at the crossroads: The process-product interface (pp. 99–123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). Concurrent activation of high-and low-level production processes in written composition. Memory & Cognition, 30, 594–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1965). Abstractness, imagery, and meaningfulness in paired-associate learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 32–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension Skill. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schilperoord, J. (2002). On the cognitive status of pauses in discourse production. In T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 59–85). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severinson-Eklundh, K., & Kollberg, P. (1996). A computer tool and framework for analyzing online revisions. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and application (pp. 163–188). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strömqvist, S. (1999). Production rate profiles. In S. Strömqvist & E. Ahlsén (Eds.), The process of writing: A progress report (pp. 53–70). Gothenburg: Department of Linguistics, University of Göteborg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strömqvist, S., & Ahlsén, E. (Eds). (1999). The process of writing: A progress report. Gothenburg papers in theoretical linguistics no. 83. Gothenburg, Sweden: Department of Linguistics, University of Göteborg.

  • Strömqvist, S., Holmqvist, K., Johansson, V., Karlsson, H., & Wengelin, Å. (2006). What keystroke logging can reveal about writing. In K. Sullivan & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer keystroke logging and writing: Methods and applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Templin, M. (1957). Certain language skills in children: Their development and interrelationships. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toglia, M. P., & Battig, W. R. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. New York: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 67–80). New York: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hell, J. G., Verhoeven, L., & van Beijsterveldt, L. M. (2008). Pause time patterns in writing narrative and expository texts by children and adults. Discourse Processes, 45, 406–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Waes, L., & Leijten, M. (2015). Fluency in writing: A multidimensional perspective on writing fluency applied to L1 and L2. Computers and Composition, 38, 79–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Waes, L., & Schellens, P. J. (2003). Writing profiles: The effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 829–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wengelin, Å. (2002). Text production in adults with reading and writing difficulties. In Gothenburg monographs in linguistics (Vol. 20). Göteborg, Sweden: Department of Linguistics, Göteborg University.

  • Wengelin, Å. (2006). Examining pauses in writing: Theory, methods and empirical data. Computer Key-Stroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications, 18, 107–130. (studies in writing).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wengelin, Å. (2007). The word-level focus in text production by adults with reading and writing difficulties. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.); M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Volume Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Studies in Writing, Vol. 20, pp. 67–82). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

  • Wengelin, Å., Torrance, M., Holmqvist, K., Simpson, S., Galbraith, D., Johansson, V., et al. (2009). Combined eyetracking and keystroke-logging methods for studying cognitive processes in text production. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 337–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

    Srdan Medimorec & Evan F. Risko

Authors
  1. Srdan Medimorec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evan F. Risko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Srdan Medimorec.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Medimorec, S., Risko, E.F. Pauses in written composition: on the importance of where writers pause. Read Writ 30, 1267–1285 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9723-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9723-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation