LA OBLIGACION FISCAL

implying practising safe sex is

{the only way forward | extremely important}

.

Example 6.5: Forward Progression (FP) from JD3 In this example of an FP, revision 128 replaces a nominal group (NGrp), 'the only way forward', with an adjectival group ('extremely important'). Linguistically, this revision involves selections in five lexicogrammatical systems: DETERMINATION, EPITHESIS, THING TYPE, QUALIFICATION, and ASSESSMENT, three functions: textual, experiential, and interpersonal, but just one rank level: the group (specifically a NGrp). Effectively, this revision only changes interpersonal meaning because the propositional content (experiential) remains the same, as does the specificity of the circumstantial attribute (textual).

111 Contrast this with the following CP:

Content

T-unit Theme Subject Theme Rheme N-Rheme

8 By using social media,

it

it uses

gives

a sense of relating to the whole the population.

Example 6.6: Commutative Progression (CP) from JD3 In this example, revision 95 deletes 'it uses' and adds 'By using social media, it gives'. Although this revision involves three lexicogrammatical systems: EVENT TYPE, MINOR TRANSITIVITY, and THEME, and two functions: textual and experiential, it involves three ranks: verbal group, prepositional phrase, and clause, and two functional components⁹: Theme and Rheme.

Consequently, it has a much greater impact on the clause than the FP in example 6.5: firstly, we have the addition of a fronted dependent clause ('By using social media') as marked Theme (THEME); secondly, this marked Theme enhances the clause via a circumstance of manner: means (MINOR TRANSITIVITY) (IFG4, p.313); thirdly, the change in process/verb (EVENT TYPE) alters the type of clause from an elaborating relation between the Subject and its Object (via the operating verb 'use') to an extending relation (via the possessing verb 'gives').

Ultimately, then, because FPs typically involve group or word level constituents, it is perhaps unsurprising that they are so prominent when it comes to the start of the writing process, because it is during this stage of writing that a writer is primarily concerned with adding 'content'.

Furthermore, FPs occur near the leading edge, which is where the writer's main focus is when they are typing. Consequently, this is perhaps why we see a great deal of variation in relation to the deployment of the other revision types (CPs, INSAs, and INSBs) at the start of the writing process and at that start of each session.

6.2.2 The middle of the writing process

Continuing our focus on FPs from the previous section, if we look at the writing process as a whole (i.e. all the sessional data combined for each dataset), there seems to be a slight trend in JD's use of FPs (and INSAs) in the middle of the writing process. For example, consider figures 6.4 and 6.5, which represent the unfolding of revision types in JD1 and JD2:

9 The substituted 'it' remains the same and refers to the same entity. Hence it is not coded as a change.

112 Figure 6.4: The unfolding of revision types in JD1

Figure 6.5: The unfolding of revision types in JD2 Both graphs show that FPs level off at about the midway point (session 3 in both instances), whilst INSAs start to increase at around the same time. Although, it is difficult to tell if this increase in INSAs was repeated in JD3 due to data corruption issues, which will be discussed later, there is a similar levelling off of FPs after the midway point. This initially suggests that the same thing may also be occurring in JD3 (cf. Appendix 12: The unfolding of revision types). Further evidence of this can be seen if we look at the frequency of FPs in each of JD's datasets, as show in figure 6.6:

113 Figure 6.6: Percentage of revisions in each session that were FPs (JD) Figure 6.6 illustrates how the percentage of revisions that are FPs fall from an average of 51.2%

(SD=7%) in session 1 to an average of 23.4% (SD=2%) in session 5, with a marked dip in their occurrence around session 3 (from an average 44% to 25.6%). If we recall from §6.1, FPs reflect online revising, and typically occur when text is first being added, such as during an initial draft.

INSAs, meanwhile, seem to be more representative of revising whilst reading (e.g. proofreading), and as such, we would expect to see a rise in their overall usage as the text evolved, and this appears to be the case, as evidenced by figure 6.7:

Figure 6.7: Percentage of revisions in each session that were INSAs (JD) Figure 6.7 shows the distribution of INSAs in the first 5 sessions of JD's datasets. It shows a slight rise in the average number of INSAs at around session 3 (where FPs start to decrease)¹⁰. This suggests that once the majority of text has been added we see less of a potential for FPs to occur, but more of a potential for INSAs/INS to occur.

10 This drop may have been more pronounced if not for the issues surrounding JD3's dataset.

114 Whilst JD appears to show a decrease in the use of FPs as her text evolves, BB's dataset shows a different story: FPs are the most frequent revision type in nearly all her sessions (the only exception being session 5, which involved only INSAs). As already discussed above, BB's preference for FPs, in combination with her low level of revision activity, suggests that she is the kind of writer who rarely redrafts, and instead prefers to write once and leave the text as it is.

This heavy reliance on FPs results in a somewhat linear revision profile, as shown in figure 6.8:

Figure 6.8: The unfolding of revision types in BB Figure 6.8 clearly shows how BB rarely revises beyond the immediate vicinity of the leading edge, as evidenced by her reliance on FPs in every writing session but the last one.

With regard to JD's use of CPs and INSBs, there appears to be no discernible patterning in terms of their use over time. In fact, we see much wider variation in the frequency and distribution of their use in comparison to FPs and INSAs. This variation may be due to the increased cognitive demands of CPs and INSBs in terms of their reliance on a writer's 'text sense' (cf. §6.3.1) and/or their increased potential/tendency to realize multifunctional meanings (cf. §6.2.1), or it may simply be due to the amount of text visible on the screen (also discussed in §6.3.1). Either way, these two revision types were both the least frequent and most variable. It may already be evident, then, that if there is any commonality to be found within JD's writing sessions, it would involve FPs and/or INSAs. We have already concluded that FPs are more important/frequent at the beginning of the writing process, and that CPs and INSBs vary widely in their usage. However, there is a great deal of variation in terms of when INSAs start to be used within individual writing sessions. Take the following graphs in figure 6.9, for example (cf. Appendix 12: The unfolding of revision types for all the sessions in each dataset):

115 Figure 6.9: Frequency of revisions types in the middle session of each dataset The graphs above show a great deal of variation in the middle sessions of each dataset. This may be because individual sessions vary with respect to number of revisions made, amount of words typed, time spent typing, etc. Ultimately, this increased variability in affective factors meant that it was extremely difficult (and perhaps unwise) to examine what happened in individual sessions between the time revision had begun and the time revision tapered off.

Overall, though, we can tentatively say that FPs decrease and INSAs increase around the middle of JD's writing process, which coincides with the view that she revises previously written drafts as her work evolves. However, in terms of the other revision types there is a great deal of variation in the middle of her writing process as a whole, and in each individual session. Consequently, it is difficult to say which practices, if any, play a key role in this part of the writing process.

6.2.3 The end of the writing process

Table 6.10 and figure 6.10 show how INSAs are most frequent in the penultimate/last session of each dataset:

JD1 JD2 JD3 BB

Count % Count % Count % Count %