Clitic subjects as landmarks in the writing production process: A study based on a keylog-derived corpus of writing bursts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2025.16.03.04Keywords:
writing process, bursts, clitic subjects, revisions, process-and-productAbstract
Bursts of writing, extracted from online recordings of the writing process, have proved an invaluable vantage point into the cognitive mechanisms at work during written language production. Crucially, they show that writers, much like speakers, produce language through a sequence of small ‘chunks’, patterns-like groupings of words that do not necessarily match the structures of theoretical grammars. As such, they are intriguing objects, whose linguistic properties are yet to be understood. To contribute to this endeavor, we track all instances of French so-called clitic subjects in a corpus of 81 keylogs of short essays written by undergraduate students in experimental conditions. We show that these clitic subjects are attracted to the burst-initial position, favoring resumption of the production after revision events. Moreover, they also act like discursive hubs in that writers are more likely to revise up to a clitic subject and restart from there, possibly relying on an entirely different structure. Therefore, they play the role of landmarks in the writing process, from which information can flow, and to which writers can get back to develop alternative discursive strategies. These results hint that the writing process and the information structure of the product are likely to be intimately intricated.
References
Alves, R. A., & Limpo, T. (2015). Progress in written language bursts, pauses, transcription, and written composition across schooling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(5), 374-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1059838
Baaijen, V. M., Galbraith, D., & De Glopper, K. (2012). Keystroke analysis: Reflections on procedures and measures. Written Communication, 29(3), 246-277.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451108
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (2010). Lexique et grammaire dans les reformulations [Grammar and lexis in reformulations]. In M. Candea & R. Mir-Samii (Eds.), La rectification à l’oral et à l’écrit. Hommage à Marie-Annick Morel (pp. 77-89). Ophrys.
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2017). Entrenchment from a psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic perspective. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 129–152). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-007
Bouriga, S. (2020). Papier-crayon vs. écran-clavier : Effets sur le coût cognitif et sur la dynamique de la production de textes [Pen and paper vs. keyboard and screen : Effects on cognitive demand and on text production dynamics]. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
https://theses.hal.science/tel-03795276v1
Bowen, N. E. J. A., & Thomas, N. (2020). Manipulating texture and cohesion in academic writing: A keystroke logging study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, 100773.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100773
Bowen, N., & Van Waes, L. (2020). Exploring revisions in academic text: Closing the gap between process and product approaches in digital writing. Written Communication, 37(3), 322-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088320916508
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written communication, 18(1), 80-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018001004
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. University of Chicago Press.
Charolles, M., & Vigier, D. (2005). Les adverbiaux en position préverbale: portée cadrative et organisation des discours [Adverbials in preverbal position: framing scope and discourse organization]. Langue française, 148, 9-30. https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.148.0009
Cislaru, G. (Ed.). (2015). Writing (s) at the crossroads: The process–product interface. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.194
Cislaru, G., & Olive, T. (2018a). Les processus de textualisation : Analyse des unités linguistiques de performance écrite [Theg textualization processes: Analysis of written performance units]. De Boeck.
Cislaru, G., & Olive, T. (2018b). Bursts of written language as performance units for the description of genre routines. In Legallois, D., Charnois, T., & Larjavaara, M. (Ed.), The Grammar of Genres and Styles (pp. 220-248). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110595864-010
Conijn, R., Roeser, J., & Van Zaanen, M. (2019). Understanding the keystroke log: the effect of writing task on keystroke features. Reading and Writing, 32, 2353-2374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09953-8
Conijn, R., Speltz, E. D., Zaanen, M. V., Waes, L. V., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2022). A product-and process-oriented tagset for revisions in writing. Written Communication, 39(1), 97-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883211052104
Crible, L., Degand, L., & Gilquin, G. (2017). The clustering of discourse markers and filled pauses: A corpus-based French-English study of (dis)fluency. Languages in Contrast, 17(1), 69-95. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.1.04cri
Culbertson, J., & Legendre, G. (2008). Qu’en est-il des clitiques sujet en français oral contemporain ? [What about clitic subjects in Present-Day Spoken French?]. Durand, J., Habert, B., & Laks, B. (Ed.) Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française - CMLF'08 (pp. 2663-2674), Institut de Linguistique Française. https://doi.org/10.1051/cmlf08308
De Cat, C. (2005). French subject clitics are not agreement markers. Lingua, 115(9), 1195-1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.02.002
Degand, L., & Simon, A. C. (2009). On identifying basic discourse units in speech: theoretical and empirical issues. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique. A journal of linguistics, psycholinguistics and computational linguistics, 4.
https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.585
Dragsted, B. (2005). Segmentation in translation: Differences across levels of expertise and difficulty. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 17(1), 49-70.
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17.1.04dra
Feltgen, Q., Lefeuvre, F., & Legallois, D. (2023). Sujet clitique et dynamique de l’écrit : un éclairage par les jets textuels [Clitic subjects and writing dynamics: A perspective based on bursts]. Discours, 32. https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.12509
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 32(4), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
Galbraith, D., & Baaijen, V. M. (2019). Aligning keystrokes with cognitive processes in writing. In Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. (Ed.), Observing writing (pp. 306-325). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004392526_015
Gilquin, G. (2020). In search of constructions in writing process data. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00038.gil
Hall, S., Baaijen, V. M., & Galbraith, D. (2024). Constructing theoretically informed measures of pause duration in experimentally manipulated writing. Reading and Writing, 37(2), 329-357. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Ivaska, I., Toropainen, O., & Lahtinen, S. (2025). Pauses during a writing process in two typologically different languages. Journal of Writing Research, 16(3), 405-431. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2025.16.03.03
Kaufer, D. S., Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1986). Composing written sentences. Research in the Teaching of English, 121-140. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171073
Kellogg, R. T. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory & cognition, 15, 256-266.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197724
Lefeuvre, F., & Moline, E. (2011). Unités syntaxiques et unités prosodiques: Bilan des recherches actuelles [Syntactic and prosodic units: Synthesis of current research]. Langue française, (2), 143-157. https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.170.0143
Le Goffic, P. (1993). Grammaire de la phrase française. Hachette Supérieur.
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358-392.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313491692
Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2017). Written language bursts mediate the relationship between transcription skills and writing performance. Written Communication, 34(3), 306-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088317714234
Mauranen, A. (2016). Temporality in speech–linear unit grammar. English Text Construction, 9(1), 77-98. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.9.1.05mau
Ulasik, M.A., Mahlow,C., & Piotrowski, M. (2025). Sentence-centric modeling of the writing process. Journal of Writing Research, 16(3), 497-532. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2025.16.03.05
Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production. Research in the Teaching of English, 113-134. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40170920
Medimorec, S., & Risko, E. F. (2017). Pauses in written composition: On the importance of where writers pause. Reading and Writing, 30, 1267-1285.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9723-7
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review, 63(2), 81. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0043158
Mutta, M., & Salminen, S. (2021). Les séquences préfabriquées dans la production écrite dans le cas de scripteurs finnophones de français et suédois L2 [Prefab sequences in written production for finnophone typers in French and L2 Swedish]. Synergies pays riverains de la Baltique, 14(20), 11-26.
Olive, T. & Cislaru, G. (2015). Linguistic forms at the process-product interface: Analysing the linguistic content of bursts of production. In G. Cislaru (Ed.), Writing(s) at the Crossroads: The process-product interface (pp. 99-123). John Benhamins Publishing Company.
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.194.06oli
Olive, T. & Bouriga, S. (2022, June 20-22). Effects of cognitive demands of planning on bursts when writing with a pen or with a computer [Conference presentation]. SIG Writing Conference 2022, Umeå University, Sweden.
Poletto, C., & Tortora, C. (2016). Subject clitics. The Oxford guide to the Romance languages (pp. 772-785). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0047
Rønneberg, V., Torrance, M., Uppstad, P. H., & Johansson, C. (2022). The process-disruption hypothesis: how spelling and typing skill affects written composition process and product. Psychological Research, 86(7), 2239-2255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01625-z
Schilperoord, J. (1996). It's about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Rodopi.
Sinclair, J. M., & Mauranen, A. (2006). Linear unit grammar. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.25
Stark, E. (2013). Clitic subjects in French text messages. In Jeppesen Kragh, K., & Lindschouw, J. (Eds.), Deixis and pronouns in Romance languages (pp. 147-169). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.136.09sta
Strömqvist, S., Holmqvist, K., Johansson, V., Karlsson, H., & Wengelin, Å. (2006). What keystroke logging can reveal about writing. In Sullivan, K. P. H., & Lindgren, E. (Eds.), Computer key-stroke logging and writing (pp. 45-71). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080460932_005
Vasylets, O., & Marin, J. (2025) Linguistic and behavioral alignment in writing: A scoping review. Journal of Writing Research, 16(3), 375-404. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2025.16.03.02
Wengelin, Å. (2006). Examining Pauses in Writing: Theory, Methods and Empirical Data. In Sullivan, K. P. H., & Lindgren, E. (Eds.), Computer key-stroke logging and writing: Methods and applications (pp. 107–130). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080460932_008
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Quentin Feltgen, Florence Lefeuvre
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.
