Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

Jocelyne Bisaillon
Universit Laval, Canada

Written Communication Volume 24 Number 4 October 2007 295-322 2007 Sage Publications 10.1177/0741088307305977 http://wcx.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Identifying the approach used by those revision experts par excellencethat is, professional editorsshould enable researchers to better grasp the revision process. To further explore this hypothesis, the author conducted research among professional editors, six of whom she filmed as they engaged in their practice. An analysis of their work approach strategies showed their detection strategies to consist in anticipating errors and in comparing the authors text with the editors knowledge, which appears in a range of states: certitude, uncertainty, and ignorance. Furthermore, the participating editors used problem-solving strategies to automatically solve more than half of the problems encountered in the text. Otherwise, they used immediate or postponed strategies. This description of professional editors in action opens a number of avenues for the further research and development of in-class instruction of self-revision and professional editing. Keywords: revision process; detection strategies; problem-solving strategies in writing; authentic writing task; linear process

esearchers in Europe or North America whose area of study is editing and revision have rarely focused their attention on the professional forms of this activity. Thus, although there is a certain body of research concerning the editing/revision process by those who self-edit (Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001; Butterfield, Hacker, & Albertson, 1996; Hayes, 2004; Hayes, Flower, Schriver, Stratman, & Carey, 1987), considerably less is known about the process used by professional editors; that is, those who have been trained to revise, edit, and proofread and who spend their working days improving other peoples texts, whether on a one-to-one basis or on

Authors Note: I thank the editor and the two reviewers for their judicious comment, which helped considerably to improve my text. I also thank Donald Kellough for his pertinent comments on my text and his accurate translation of its meaning. 295

296

Written Communication

behalf of businesses, governments, or not-for-profit organizations (Bisaillon, Fortier, & Prfontaine, 2003). Even in some of the most recent works on editing and revision (Allal, Chanquoy, & Largy, 2004; Horning, 2002), no space at all is devoted to professional editing, their authors focusing instead on the revision process used by learners or by professional copywriters. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that most often researchers define revision in terms of a subprocess of writing (Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001; Fitzgerald, 1987; Rijlaarsdam, Couzijn, & van den Bergh, 2004). Even though professional editing presents numerous similarities with the self-revision performed by copywriters, it nevertheless differs from the latter on several points. As has been noted by Rijlaarsdam et al. (2004) and Bisaillon (2004), professional editing is a process unto itself that occurs independently of writing, whereas self-revision is one of the three subprocesses of writing, the other two being planning and drafting. Bisaillons (2005) definition of professional editing is, to my knowledge, the only one to have been developed specifically in relation to the workplace forms of this activity. Seeking to enrich previous definitions by accounting for the features specific to professional editing, she describes this latter process as
an activity that consists in comprehending and evaluating a text written by a given author and in making modifications to this text in accordance with the assignment or mandate given by a client. Such modifications may target aspects of information, organization, or form with a view to improving the quality of the text and enhancing its communicational effectiveness. (p. 4, translation)

The first major difference worth noting is that a professional editor performs his/her work on a text devised by another person, be s/he an author or a client. The fact that someone else has penned the text in question will necessarily have an impact on the editing process, on account of the limitations stemming from this relationship. For example, except under special circumstances, a professional editor will not intervene in the ideas of the author whose texts s/he is revising, no more than s/he will modify the authors particular style. In principle, matters of personal taste will no be used as grounds for the modifications s/he makes to the texts s/he is revising. Conversely, an author who self-revises is free to modify his/her text as much and as often as s/he likes, directing changes to either the ideas s/he is expressing or the terms in which s/he chooses to couch them, simply for reasons of attractiveness or aesthetics. It is his/her text, after all.

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies

297

The second main difference consists in the fact that a professional editor is given a mandate to revise by a client. S/he must, accordingly, respect the terms of this mandate, thus effectively restricting the leeway with which (or the extent to which) s/he may make changes to the text. There are many other differences between professional editing and selfrevision, as Laflamme (2007) has shown in her study comparing revision tasks, texts for revising, social and physical environments, and editors themselves. All the same, Laflamme does not cover the work process of professional editors in any great detail. In view of the considerations set out above, I thus believe it is worthwhile to carry forward with research conducted during the past 30-odd years concerning self-revision, with a view to properly describing the revision process as it is engaged in by professional editors. The additional knowledge resulting from such a project might well provide researchers with greater insight into the revision process and, in addition, might help to improve education in editing and revision. What defines revision in a professional context? What approach is taken by those who make their living revisingthat is, professional editors? Are their resemblances between their strategies? How is their revision process influenced by the mandate they receive, their conception of revision, and their experience? My previous research into the revision process of six professional editors has provided me with an initial response to these questions. In this article, I will first explain the research method used by a team of researchers and research assistants, including myself.1 Thereafter, I will present the findings bearing on the approaches taken by the editors surveyed, with particular emphasis being laid on the strategies they resort to.

Method
To describe, just as accurately as possible, the processes used by editors as they perform their work and to grasp the justifications underlying particular modifications made to texts, we conducted a case study in a real work environment.

Participants and Their Conceptions of Revision

Six editors (two men and four women) participated in this project. We2 selected editors who make their living entirely or in part from their work editing. As half had little experience and the other half a significant amount,

298

Written Communication

we placed them into two categories: Participants 1, 5, and 6 were placed in the least experienced category (2, 4, and 1.5 years, respectively) and Participants 2, 3, and 4, in the most experienced category (18, 23, and 12 years, respectively). Categorizing the editors in this manner enabled us to determine whether their behavior varied with experience. In addition, we used the interview data to divide the participants into two other categories according to how they conceived of the task of revision that is, from a normative or a communicational perspective. In the normative conception, the editors main concern is to bring the text into line with linguistic ruleswhether these apply to typography, spelling, grammar, vocabulary, syntax, spelling, or punctuation. One of the participants thus stated,
[Revision consists of] making corrections so as to improve the text. Not supplanting the author, but really correcting Anglicisms [in French], errors of syntax, punctuation, agreement of past participles [in French], and so on and so forth. Uh, sometimes rephrasing something. (Editor 2)

In the communicational conception, the editor continues to be concerned about the formal quality of the text yet also devotes his/her attention to the effectiveness of the text from the viewpoint of communication with the reader. The emphasis is on the text-reader relationship. As one of the participants put it,
Revision is . . . making sure that the contents are clear through the form. That contents consist of clear, precise sentences, that the language used is appropriate for the target reader. [Its] trying to prevent any mistakes from slipping through. Making sure the text is clear, that the appropriate level of language use is appropriate for the target reader, and that the form and the structure are correct. (Editor 1)

Participants 2 and 6 held a primarily normative conception; Participants 1, 3, 4, and 5 tended to take the intended readership into greater consideration. It is worth noting that although editors conceptions of revision had an influence on the modifications made to texts, they did not, on the other hand, appear to have an impact on the detection and problem-solving strategies used.

Observing Actual Revision Work

Research into editing and revision rarely takes into consideration the tasks as they are actually performed. Usually, the researchers design artificial tasks using a text that they have altered or that they have themselves written

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies

299

Table 1 Comparison of Participating Editors, Years of Experience, Conception of Revision, Type of Mandate Received, Type of Text Revised
Editor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Experience 2 years 18 years More than 23 years 12 years Approximately 4 years 1 years Conception Communicational focus Normative focus Communicational focus Communicational focus Communicational focus Normative focus Mandate Linguistic revision Linguistic revision Rewrite Language and content Linguistic revision Linguistic revision Type of Text Land use plan Teachers guide Article Mass market book Report Ecology guide

Note: In gray are the two editors who have a broader notion of revision than is indicated by the type of work requested by the client.

(Broekkamp & van den Bergh, 1996; Hayes et al., 1987; Piolat, Roussey, Olive, & Amada, 2004). These artificial texts are what the participants then revise and what the researchers then use to study their participants selfrevision process. Although the use of artificial tasks can produce worthwhile results with respect to revision in an educational setting (see the model developed by Hayes et al., 1987) or for comparing two groups of revisers (beginners and experts), they are inadequate for the purpose of studying professional editing. How can we come to understand what really happens in a situation involving revision when the texts used for research purposes are distorted from the outset? Editors revise a genuine text so that it can be published for a real audience. This is the work that must be observed, analyzed, and understood. In an authentic writing task performance situation, time is of the essencean editor is often paid an hourly wage or feejust as the target reader is of prime importanceit is for his/her sake that the text is being published. Thus, modifications will necessarily reflect the weight of these imperatives. However, for the purposes of our research, it was not necessary to study a mandate in its entirety. Indeed, only one Editor 3 participating in our study was able to complete his/her revision tasks from beginning to end, and this was because s/he was revising an article. If, as Hayes et al. (1987) have explained, the definition of the task of a writer who revises his/her own text corresponds to how s/he conceives of

300

Written Communication

revision, that of the professional editor consists of the mandate given by the client, combined with his/her own conception of revision. As Table 1 shows, this mandate usually consists of a linguistic (or formal) variety of revision work. The client would like the editor to concentrate on correcting errors of spelling, grammar, syntax, and vocabulary. One client (4) wanted the editor to focus on the content as well, and another (3) mandated the editor to partially rewrite the textwritten by a specialist on the subject matterto make it easier for readers to understand. Although the editors conception of revision is usually in line with the mandate given to him or her, it sometimes occurs that the editor harbors a broader notion of revision than is indicated by the type of work requested by the client (Editors 1 and 5). This kind of editor will thus do more than merely rid the target text of mechanical and grammatical errors. In other words, while reading the text, his/her attention will not be focused exclusively on problems related to noncompliance with standard rules.

Procedure
Protocol analysis, a tool developed by cognitive psychologists, has been widely used to understand the process underlying both writing and revision. Depending on the context of the research, researchers have used either concurrent verbalization (Fortier & Prfontaine, 1994; Hayes et al., 1987) or retrospective verbalization (Gaunder, 1987; Magee, 1995; Prfontaine & Fortier, 1997). We chose to use retrospective verbalization with this group of professional editors because it does not interfere with their work. Professional editors aim to work with speed and efficiency, and nothing was to be gained by slowing them down. Retrospective verbalization was the best method for respecting the actual state of affairs, because it allowed the editors to complete their work before having to discuss it. As with any scientific method, retrospective verbalization has its limitations. For one, the operation of retrieving can be fallible. Since retrieval for LTM may be an onerous task, even in situations where the information is potentially retrievable, subjects may prefer to generate the information instead (Eriksson & Simon, 1993, p. 20). In addition, participants may have forgotten the reasons that prompted them to carry out a particular action, thus making for gaps in the information ultimately collected. To prevent a given editor from either forgetting information or creatively reconstructing his/her past actions (Gufoni, 1996), retrospective verbalization was engaged in a short time after s/he had completed his/her task.

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies

301

That way, s/he was given the opportunity to elicit his/her responses quickly. Likewise, by having his/her recently completed work close to hand, the participant was thus able to draw on contextual indices that readily brought to mind the setting in which s/he had performed his/her revision work; the participant was also able to draw on prompting or recovery indices enabling him or her to recall what s/he had been doing and what s/he had been thinking about (Gufoni, 1996, p. 28). Furthermore, the participants were entitled to forget, because we preferred having incomplete information rather than erroneous data. It is worth noting that forgetfulness occurred only rarely. The 2-hour-long videotaping sessions took place in the editors home or workplace while s/he revised a text for a client. After each session, the research assistant engaged the editor in retrospective verbalization. With the editor sitting nearby, the assistant scrolled down through the text onscreen, stopping at each modification to ask the editor for the reasons justifying his/her choice of solution. This sometimes induced the editor to explain his/her revision process and point out the difficulties encountered. The verbalization was recorded on audio cassette. Finally, at the end of the verbalization session or on the following day, the editor answered a number of questions within the framework of a semistructured interview. This served to gather information about him or her and his/her professional life as an editor (education, experience, perspective on the process s/he used, etc.).

Coding the Strategies

A grid was developed for the purpose of describing the editors work process and identifying the strategies they used to detect and solve problems while revising. To this end, three data sources were relied on: (a) viewing of the video in which each editor appeared in the process of revising, (b) a comparison of the original text with the modified version, and (c) protocol analysis of retrospective accounts. Every one of the editors actions was noted down, including the strategies they resorted to. For the purpose of classifying components of the revision process as well as revision strategies proper, we built on the previous work of a number of researchers (Flower, Hayes, Carey, Schriver, & Stratman, 1986; Hacker, Plumb, Butterfield, Quathamer, & Heineken, 1994; Hayes, 1996, 2004; Hayes et al., 1987; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1983). In particular, these authors stressed the important role of reading in the revision process, the detection and correction of errors, and the revision strategies used by the writer in the course of his/her work. Below I shall seek to sketch out the main points of their contributions and to apply them to the situation of professional editing.

302

Written Communication

Reading
Whatever the mandate accorded by the client, the type of text to be revised, or the experience of the editor, reading is the main route of approach to revision, just as it is for writers who revise their own texts (Hayes, 1996; Hayes et al., 1987). Just as the classroom context differs from the professional context, so too does the type of reading performed differ according to each setting in which this activity is conducted. Thus, in contrast with students, professional editors will seldom have to read to grasp their assignment because they almost receive it orally from their clients. As concerns reading background texts (Hayes, 1996), the underlying objective is not to search for ideas but to validate the information contained in the text, if that indeed is a part of the mandate. Moreover, as is also the case with copywriters who do revision, they read both to comprehend and to evaluate (Hayes et al., 1987). And, as has also become clear, they read to solve problems and to make checks. Reading to comprehend. All the editors participating in our research project informed us that they did not read a text for revising all the way through, unless the text in question was short. If they wished to have an idea of the contents, they would usually instead skim the document or examine the table of contents, if there is one, as Editor 1 explained during the semistructured interview. It comes as no great surprise, then, that among all of the participants, only Editor 3whose mandate was to revise a magazine articlehad read his text from start to finish. On the other hand, most of the editors observed started by reading an entire paragraph to grasp the overall gist. Only Editor 2 skipped this phase and began with the evaluative reading. It is also important to point out that this experienced editor was performing a linguistic revision and that she held a normative conception of her work. Such orientations were ill conducive to reading for comprehension, given the editors single focus on form. Reading to evaluate. Once all the editorsexcept Editor 2had finished reading the paragraph to grasp its meaning, they read it a second time to detect whatever may be improved in the text. For Editor 2, of course, the evaluative reading was her first reading. All of the editors then read the paragraph sentence by sentence looking for items that were incorrect (i.e., did not accord with linguistic or textual conventions) or that could be improved upon (i.e., did not serve to attain maximum communicational effectiveness [see Sperber & Wilson, 1995]). When such items were detected, the editors usually sought solutions to correct the resulting problems. Once again, with the exception of Editor 2, all the editors said that they had completed at least

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies

303

two evaluative readings. However, most of them have said that if an editor had been given a very long text (e.g., 400 pages) and a very short amount of time in which to revise it, s/he might well have made do with performing only one evaluative reading. Reading to solve problems. In addition to serving as a basis on which to detect problems, reading also represented a strategy of problem solving used to varying degrees by all the editors. Reading to check. After finishing the revision of a paragraph to which they had made many modifications, most of the editors reread to make sure that their modifications were correct and that they had not forgotten anything. Although reading is the route of approach to revision, the final read-through constitutes the off-rampthe way out of the revision process.

Problem Detection
We wished to grasp how editors were able to detect the real or potential problems contained in a text. We thus began by examining the explanations provided by researchers whose work has preceded our own. Hayes et al. (1987) demonstrated that revision is a process that is performed consciously or unconsciously, depending on the moment or phase of work and on the types of problems encountered. An editor will have in memory a list of problems, what these authors refer to as conditions, associated with a list of solutions or actions to be carried out. When, during evaluative reading, a condition on this list is detected in a text, the editor is able to associate it at once with the corresponding solution. This is what happens whenever an editor applies, for example, a grammar rule. However, not all the problems that a writer encounters in the text can be associated with predetermined actions. Although it is generally admitted that revisers can detect a problem that they are also unable to remedy, Hacker et al. (1994, p. 75) have, based on their research findings, posited the oppositethat is, to be able to detect a problem in a text, editors must have knowledge of error correction (i.e., knowledge of how to correct). This conclusion is not corroborated by Hayes (2004, pp. 15-16), who affirms that there are numerous occasions when one is able to detect an error without knowing how to correct it, whether it be detecting a spelling mistake or a poorly written phrase. Whereas Scardamalia and Bereiter (1983) viewed detection as a process of comparing the text that the writer actually wrote with the one that s/he intended to write, in the case of professional editors, we instead perceive a

304

Written Communication

contrast between the text written by an author and the editors knowledge. According to the data we gathered, it appears that detection most often results from comparison but that it may also occur as the result of anticipating a problem. In cases of comparison, the trigger for detection is a unit or segment of the text to be revised (e.g., a character, a word, or a group of words, etc.), whereas in the case of anticipation, the trigger is a situation, retrieved from a bank of text-related problems stored in the editors memory and that is supplied with situations encountered throughout his/her experience of editing and revising. Such situations include, for example, figures, tables, and tables of contents, which are all associated with problems of numbering or uniformity of headings. When given a book to revise, a professional editor will anticipate having to deal with this kind of problem before s/he even opens the book. In short, whenever an editor relies on comparison, his/her starting point for detecting a real or potential problem is the text to be revised; whenever s/he resorts to anticipation, it means that s/he comes to the text to be revised already on the lookout for a potential problem. We have, moreover, observed that when using comparison to detect problems in a text, editors do not rely solely on whatever sure knowledge they have stored away in their memory. They may instead be prompted to detect a problem by imperfectthat is, vague or uncertainknowledge or even a lack of knowledge concerning particular units of the text to be revised. Indeed, it might be said that for any inventory of detection strategies to be complete, it must also account for the editors hazy knowledge and even their lack of knowledge. Admittedly, it may seem counterintuitive, to say the least, to posit the ability of editors to turn their ignorance into a trigger or lever for detecting a problem, but an analysis of the data shows this to be effectively the case. One example of this situation occurs whenever editors run up against a word they are unfamiliar with. They might well decide to move on, saying to themselves that the author was a skilled writer and knew how to use the word correctlyor they might harbor doubts about the spelling of the word or the appropriateness of its use in the context at hand. As the result of their lack of knowledge, these types of editors would thus be prompted to look up the word to get answers to their questions. While reading, editors may draw on a range of material means to aid them in detecting problems. For example, as a way of slowing their reading speed, editors may work their way through a text manually; that is, follow the line of argument or presentation with their finger or a pencil. Many of them flip through the text to corroborate or invalidate their initial impression of having uncovered a genuine problem, or even mark the text in some fashion to indicate where a particular problem is located.

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies

305

Table 2 Description of Detection Strategies

Detection Strategy Operation of anticipation of a potential problem Description Based on his/her previous knowledge or experience, the editor anticipates that there may be an error in a unit or segment of text. Prior even to beginning to revise, the editor knows that s/he will have to devote special attention to the section of the text where a given type of problem is anticipated. Comparison is a memory-based retrieval of knowledge appearing in a range of states: certitude, uncertainty, and lack of knowledge. The editor pauses over a unit or segment of the text and compares it with some item taken from his/her store of knowledge. At that point, one of three characteristic situations will come into play. Certain of his/her own knowledge, the editor does not hesitate to deem the detected unit of text as running counter to what is normal or expected. The editor is unable to determine whether the unit or segment of text in question would normally be flagged in this context, because s/he is unsure of his/her knowledge. The editor is unable to identify the anomalous character of a given unit of text because it triggers no recollection of a similar item in his/her store of knowledge. s/he is, in short, not cognizant in respect of the problem at hand.

Operation of comparison between an item in the text and knowledge stored in memory 1. Certain knowledge

2. Uncertain knowledge 3. Lack of knowledge

The outcome of using a strategy founded on certain knowledge is to detect a genuine problem, or one that is perceived as such. The outcome of using a strategy founded on uncertain knowledge or a lack of knowledge is to detect a potential problem. Table 2 displays the descriptions devised for each of the categories and that were used to classify the various detection strategies observed.

Problem-Solving Strategies and the Solutions Adopted as a Result (by type)

Once editors have detected what appears to be a problem, they can correct it automatically or select a strategy to decide what to do after the problem has been detected. When correcting automatically, editors do not use a strategy. As soon as the problem is detected, they solve it without having to reread the text, reflect, or undertake a search. They draw on knowledge in their memory:

306

Written Communication

The correction is made simultaneously with detection or immediately afterward. Automatic correction is most often used to solve spelling, grammar, and punctuation problems, but occasionally for other problems as well. For instance, Editor 1 automatically corrected, among other things, certain Anglicisms and vocabulary frequently misused by the author (e.g., faire mention instead of traiter [comparable in English to the misuse of aggravate to mean irritate]). Editor 3 also corrects certain problems of syntax, such as overlong sentences, the irrelevant use of impersonal pronouns and structures (e.g., il faut, il existe [comparable to the unnecessary couching of a statement in the passive voice]). As often as possible, he eliminates gerunds that [in French] thwart the forward drive of the sentence [. . .] and thus cramp the stylistic effect. With experience, he has developed a whole series of problems and/or solutions into automatisms that would otherwise require reflection on the part of less experienced editors. Hayes et al. (1987) have noted that a vast repertory of procedures (condition/action) enables editors both to work quickly, as the association is automatic, and to free up their working memory for cases that require reflection. Situations involving editors who are unable to correct a problem automatically generally stem from their having to reread the text often to comprehend it. Reflection and judgment are required both: They reflect, draw on their knowledge of the topic at hand, and decide on the appropriate manner in which to improve clarity, for example. In such situations, a conscious process of problem solving is brought into play involving strategies whose exact number has not been established. For their part, Hayes et al. (1987) have identified five such strategies. Writers or revisers can choose to ignore the problem if they are unable to determine the nature of the problem. At that point, they will decide that the reader will not be misled or confused by the problem or that solving it will require too much effort or effort that cannot reasonably be justified (Hayes et al., 1987, p. 224). Alternately, they can decide to delay action until a later time (Hayes et al., 1987, pp. 224-225). This strategy may be used for various reasons, but the primary one is being unable to find the solution on the spot. They may decide to look for more information to produce a more accurate diagnosis. Finally, writers can revise the text or rewrite a portion of it. In the first case, they will stay as close as possible to the original text: In their view, the greater portion of the text can be left intact. However, if they take the idea contained in a given sentence and reformulate it in their own words, this is rewriting. This strategy is most often used when too many problems have been encountered. The findings of our research have enabled us to view certain strategies from a new perspective and indeed to notice new strategies altogether.

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies

307

Table 3 Description of Problem-Solving Strategies

Problem-Solving Strategy No strategy Description

When correcting automatically, the editor does not use a strategy. As soon as the problem is detected, s/he solves it without having to reread the text, reflect, or undertake a search.

Immediate strategy 1. Rereading

The editor rereads a sentence or paragraph because the meaning is not clear. To correct a given segment of text, s/he must under stand its meaninga thing s/he is unable to accomplish after only a single reading. In this case, we are no longer dealing with an evaluative reading to detect a problem, as the problem has already been detected. Instead, this type of reading is performed to help him or her to find the solution. 2. Reflection The editor does not arrive at a solution quickly. S/he considers various possible solutions, often in combination with rereading. 3. Immediate search The editor performs an immediate search to find a solution or, sometimes, to make a more accurate diagnosis, as Hayes, Flower, Schriver, Stratman, and Carey (1987) have indicated. S/he searches for the answer in a tool, such as a dictionary or the Internet, or in the text itself; or, s/he addresses an inquiry to the author or some other person. 4. Postponement of The editor lacks knowledge about something and it would take him solution or her too much time to find a solution at that moment. For example, arriving at a solution might require doing searches on the Internet or contacting the author or another resource person. Postponement will also, obviously, be an alternative of choice when, despite the editors best efforts to devise and implement problem-solving strategies, his/her searches have failed to turn up anything usefulat least in the short term. 5. Tentative solution The editor makes an initial modification. Although nonfinal, the wording leaves him or her somewhat dissatisfied, but it at least allows him or her set down his/her ideas in some form or other. s/he will come back to this point at some later time. The tentative solution is different from the suggestion (see below), in that the former refers to a situation in which it is the editor who makes a note to return with a definitive formulation later on, whereas the latter refers to a note made to the author proposing one or more solutions for him or her to choose between.

Problem-solving strategy is a single strategy or multistrategy that is performed in conjunction with various resources for the purpose of solving the problems detected. Editors devise a strategy for solving them immediately (rereading, reflection, immediate search) or postpone searching for the solution or

308

Written Communication

Table 4 Description of Solutions Adopted (by type)

Solution Type Immediate solution 1. No modification 2. Revision Description

3. Rewriting

The editor may realize that what was perceived as presenting a potential problem has no basis in fact. The editor solves the problem by making only slight modifications and closely adheres to the original text (Hayes, Flower, Schriver, Stratman, & Carey, 1987). The editor expands the scope of modification, reformulating the authors idea in his/her own words; s/he preserves the essence of the text, but not its original wording or form. The extent of the modification may vary from a single sentence to a lengthier section of the text (Hayes et al., 1987). Rewording may consist of overhauling the sentence as a whole or, instead, making several discrete modifications within it. The editor has failed to hit on the solution for the time being and makes no modification to the text. The revised text bears no trace of any definitive modification. The reviser may, however, put forward a suggestion to the author, penciling in his/her proposal even. Whenever it is a suggestion that is being offered, the decision whether to make a modification rests with the author.

Postponed solution 1. No solution 2. Suggestion to author

applying the solution itself later in this stage of revision period or until a subsequent stage altogether (postponement of solution). When solving the problem is postponed, editors may formulate a tentative solution that they will reconsider later, they may make a suggestion to the author who will have the last word, or they may have no solution. Problem-solving strategies result in an immediate or postponed solution to the problem. There are three forms of an immediate solution: no modification, revision, and rewriting. The definitions for each of the components figuring in the new categorization are set out in Tables 3 and 4.

Results
Use of Detection Strategies
As the findings of our research show, the six participating editors used detection strategies that involve comparison (97.48%) to a much greater

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies

309

Table 5 Detection Strategies Used by Six Editors

Comparison Lack of Uncertainty 11.61% 18 8.90% 26 7.30% 23 5.71% 14 23.81% 35 17.95% 14

Editor 1 2 3 4 5 6

Anticipation 5.16% 8 1.03% 3 0.63% 2 7.48% 11 8.98% 7

Certainty 77.42% 120 89.38% 261 90.79% 286 94.29% 231 65.99% 97 64.10% 50

Knowledge 5.81% 9 0.68% 2 1.27% 4 2.72% 4 8.97% 7

Total 155 292 315 245 147 78

Note: N = 1,232 instances of strategy use. The gray background indicates the more experienced editors.

extent than strategies based on anticipation (2.52%). From the outset, it should be pointed out that such apparently lopsided results are, in fact, rather predictable, given that the use of anticipation strategies is restricted to editing/revision situations encountered only in connection with certain types of texts. As might be expected, comparison drew mostly on certain knowledge previously stored in memory (84.82%). Nonetheless, the editors were also able to detect problems on the basis of uncertain knowledge or even a lack of knowledge about a particular point or problem. Uncertain knowledge could trigger detection of problems in the authors text (8.60%) or in modifications made by the editor (1.90%). In the latter case, the editor was unsure about the accuracy of his/her modification. Strategies involving lack of knowledge about an item in the text were the least common (2.11%), with such ignorance most often relating to informationrelated aspects. Doubt was the key to detection in all cases. Table 5 summarizes the differences appearing between the editors with respect to the strategies used. All the editors used anticipation and comparison strategies, except Editor 4, who did not draw on anticipation or lack of knowledge. Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that he did not encounter typical anticipation

310

Written Communication

situations (tables, figures, table of contents, etc.) and that he specializes in a particular subject matter, which gives him the requisite knowledge about the information in the text he was assigned to revise. There were broad variations between editors with regard to percentage use of a given strategy. For instance, the difference between the editor who worked from a basis in certainty most (Editor 4) and she who did so the least (Editor 6) was 30% (Table 5). These results are in keeping with the different levels of professional experience characterizing the two, with the former having considerable experience and the latter being the least experienced of the six. However, when the editors are grouped according to their experience, similar behaviors emerge. When editors had more experience (gray background in Table 5), they also based more of their comparisons on certain knowledge than did less experienced editors (91.31% vs. 71.25%). It follows that the latter group worked more often from uncertain knowledge (15.79% vs. 5.40%). Furthermore, experienced editors almost never based their comparisons on a lack of knowledge, whereas less experienced editors did so occasionally (0.70% vs. 5.26%). Patterns of anticipation by the two groups produce a similar parallel. It remains to be seen whether this observation holds constant among experienced editors or whether it depends on the context of revision. There does not appear to be any correlation between normative versus communicational conceptions of revision, on the one hand, and the strategies used by the revisers, on the other.

Use of Problem-Solving Strategies

Analysis of the behavior of the editors under study reveals that they solved, automatically or immediately, a little more than half of the problems encountered in the text (56.77%). In these cases, editors did not use a strategy but instead relied on their knowledge of conditions and/or actions. This knowledge is a boon to the editors work; as Flower et al. (1986) have explained: It helps us stop automatically at red lights, hit the carriage return without thinking, and detect many problems in texts with little demand on our attention (p. 34). However, as is shown in Table 6, the individual editors level of experience affected their use of strategies when solving problems. Editors with more experience relied relatively little on problem-solving strategies, considering that 74.55% of the time they solved the problem automatically, whereas less experienced editors were able to do this less than half the time. This makes for an enormous difference, but given the small sample size, the question remains open as to whether this always holds true between more and less experienced editors.

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies

311

Table 6 Problem-Solving Strategies of Six Editors

Strategies No strategy 56.91% 103 81.67% 254 77.19% 335 64.81% 186 31.97% 39 28.09% 32 56.77% Immediate Reported Tentative Search Search de Solution 14.92% 27 7.72% 24 5.30% 23 3.48% 10 53.28% 65 48.74% 58 22.24% 11.60% 21 3.86% 12 1.15% 5 3.28% 4 4.30% 5 4.03% 1.15% 5 2.52% 3 0.61%

Editor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average

Rereading Reflection 4.97% 9 1.61% 5 3% 13 9.41% 27 4.92% 6 6.72% 8 5.1% 11.60% 21 5.14% 16 12.21% 53 22.30% 64 6.56 8 10.92 13 9.95%

Total 187 311 434 287 409 119

Note: N = 1,446 instances of strategy use. The gray background indicates more experienced editors.

These results will have to be validated at some point in the future. Among all the editors, Editor 2 was the one who most often corrected mistakes without resorting to any strategies: 81.67% of the time, she produced a correction practically at the same instant she detected a problem. It is worth noting that this editor held a normative conception of revision and had herself been given a mandate to perform linguistic revisiona type of revision that draws on the activation of stored knowledge more than on reflection. Most interestingly, as the results pertaining to Editor 2 also show, she was also the editor who used a problem-solving strategy based on reflection the least often among our cohort of six. Overall, the problem-solving strategy most often used was the immediate search for a solution (22.24%). This being said, immediate search was used relatively often (35.55%) by less experienced editors but was little used (7.05%) by more experienced editors, who preferred reflection. It was sometimes used in isolation, such as when an editor was trying to think of a synonym, but was often associated with a rereading of a passage (4.68%) that was unclear or for which rewording was in order. At this point, it is crucial to make an important qualification, namely, that in response to taped images of them pausing for a moment, the editors often

312

Written Communication

stated (in the verbalizations) that they were rereading or reflecting, but they did not always think to mention this fact. Thus, it is difficult to accurately quantify use of these two strategies with the data-gathering tools we had available to us. These strategies are undoubtedly used more frequently than initially appears to be the case. On this point, additional research using more accurate instruments will be required. Postponing the search (4.03%) was not often used by any of the editors under study, and even less so by those having more experience. In a few cases, an editor would venture a tentative solution and make a mental note to come back to this point some time later. In short, this solution consisted of an initial modification to the text that was intended to be a provisional measure only. Although not entirely satisfactory to the editor, it nevertheless enabled him to set down his/her ideas. This strategy was used especially when the editor was going to correct the text on the computer afterward, and s/he was aware that later on s/he would have the opportunity to reconsidering formulations that s/he found momentarily to be wanting. Finally, considering the six editors as a whole, only very rarely (0.61 %) did they propose a tentative solution that they planned to rework later.

Solutions Adopted (by type)

Given our interest in both problem-solving proper and in the effectiveness of problem-solving strategies, we divided solutions to problems into immediate solutions and postponed solutions. After adding up all the immediate solutions (no modification, revision, and rewriting), it becomes clear that the editors are able to solve the problems detected most of the time. On this score, skill grows with experience. Editor 6, the least skilful of the six, is also the editor having the least experience: She managed to solve 53.73% of the problems encountered. Editor 3, the most skilful of the group, was also the editor having the greatest experience: He managed to solve 94.1% of the problems. Table 7 presents a breakdown of the types of solutions adopted by the editors. In 6.23% of cases, there were no grounds for doubt on the part of the editor, which explains why s/he did not then modify the text. No solution was thus the approach adopted by the editors 2.26% to 11.66% of the time. All made some use of revision and rewriting, although the extent to which such solutions were used varied considerably from one editor to another. As the mandates given by the clients aimed primarily at obtaining linguistic revision, revision (61.55%) was used far more frequently than rewriting (5.94%) as a solution to problems. In a different context, the opposite might have held true.

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies

313

Table 7 Immediate and Postponed Solutions Used by Six Editors

Immediate Solutions No Modification (false alarm) 6.98% 13 2.26% 7 10.53% 11 4.83% 3 11.66% 14 11.13% 13 6.23% Postponed Solutions No Solution 23.11% 43 8.09% 25 8.69 18 24.19% 15 35% 42 45.21% 52 24.05 Authors Suggestion 2.15% 4 2.91% 9 2.41% 5 120 .87% 1 1.39% 115 Tentative Solution

Editor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average

Revision 65.59% 122 86.73% 268 64.25% 133 64.51% 40 50.83% 61 37.39% 43 61.55%

Rewriting 2.15 % 4 19.32% 40 6.45% 4 2.50% 3 5.21% 6 5.94%

186 309 207 62

Note: N = 1,006 solutions. The gray background indicates more experienced editors.

These professional editors were unable to solve all the problems they detected in the texts. As they could not authorize themselves to alter the authors ideas, they thus postponed correction of passages that lacked clarity. They might then make a suggestion to the author (1.39%) or write nothing at all (24.05%). They proceeded to make modifications once they had obtaining the authors explanation. When faced with a difficult problem, they might also write in a tentative solution and return to it later. We also wanted to know whether certain strategies were more effective than others. Therefore, we examined the results of using the immediate solution and postponed solution problem-solving strategies. Figure 1 displays the results. Automatic correction without recourse to a strategy was as effective as it gets. Whenever the editor detected a problem and did not use a strategy to solve it, it was overwhelmingly (98.22%) because s/he immediately perceived the solution and made the necessary modification. In less than 2% of cases did s/he detect a problem without also immediately perceiving the solution. The solution was, at that point, postponed (with or without a suggestion being made to the author).

314

Written Communication

Figure 1 Results of Problem-Solving Strategies for All Six Editors

120 100 80 60 98.22 40 20 0 76.37 69.23 52.89 0

ch

gy

ng

io

ar

ct

ra

di

Se

St

ef

er

ea

te

ed

Im

Postponed Solution

Immediate Solution

Among strategies, reflection and rereading were the most effective, producing an immediate solution to the problem in 76.37% and 69.23% of the cases, respectively. In comparison, immediate search did not necessarily result in immediate solutions, as only 52.89% of the time did it produce the desired results. Moreover, nearly half the time, the editor only confirmed that the authors choice was the right one, meaning that there had been no problem to begin with. It is only logical that when a search was postponed, the solution was also postponed. This strategy was used primarily to solve problems of form (54.86%) and problems related to information (40.28%). Only rarely were solutions to organization problems postponed (4.86%). I noted that editors who were more focused on form tended to postpone problems related to information slightly more often than did the other editors. The effectiveness of this strategy varied among the editors, and experience did not seem to play a role on this score.

Po

st

po

ne

ia

Se

le

ar

te

ch

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies

315

Discussion
Authentic Writing Tasks Versus Artificial Tasks
The case study analyzed in this article prompts me to elaborate on the need to use an authentic writing task in certain research projects. To begin with, as the result of the kind of research project we conducted, we were able to bring out the interrelationships between the multiple facets of the revision process engaged in by professionalsdimensions that an artificial task would not have allowed us to perceive. In particular, we would not have been able to grasp the relationship between the mandate and the editors conception of revision, nor, for that matter, such aspects as the influence of the client or the author, the editors experience working with a particular client or author, time limitations (including deadlines), or the type of text to be revised. In the discussion below, I will not again take up the impact of the mandateconception of revision relationship (having already dealt with this subject) but will devote some remarks to the other aspects just listed. By observing revision as it is actually performed in the workplace, we were able to observe how the client has an impact on this process not only because of his/her role as mandate giver but also because of the values that s/he wishes to communicate. Thus, for example, Editor 3, whose mandate consisted of revising and/or rewriting an article to be published in a magazine dedicated to heritage, had to perform his/her revisions (mandate) in a manner mindful of the magazines mission, which is to defend heritage (values). As it so happens, this mission was reflected by certain of his/her modifications that highlighted the conservation and restoration of heritage as opposed to the replacement of the latter. Behind every client there is an author, who most often will have the last word on the revised text. The various revision situations encountered showed us that the author could be very close to the editor and respond immediately to the latters questions, or, as was more often the case, be at considerable remove from the editor yet able to reply to the questions put to him. Thus, whereas professional writers must solve all the problems that they may run into as they revise their own text, such is not the case with professional editors, who are not always able to grasp the authors intended meaning. Observing actual revision tasks being performed provides a basis for fully appreciating the value of the time allotted to the editor. Thus, for example, Editor 2, who was determined to turn to fullest account the 2 hours during which she was observed, operated according to her custom. Given the little

316

Written Communication

time made available to her for completing her work, she tended to refer the solving of the various problems she detected back to the author, whereas she could have searched for the solution herself. This work method thus enabled her to revise the requisite number of pages assigned to her and meet her deadline too. If this editor had been given an artificial text to work with, undoubtedly she would have taken all the time necessary to coming up with the answers instead of making do with forwarding her questions to the author for the latter to solve as best s/he may. To sum up, using authentic writing tasks aided us in identifying similarities between the various strategies used in the performance of revision workbut also a number of differences. For example, anticipation is associated with certain sections of the text such as the table of contents, tables, figures, and so on. Now, if we had given all the editors a single article to work with, the use of this strategy would have likely failed to emerge in our observations. Using authentic writing tasks enabled us to describe as accurately as possible the work process of professional editors; on the other hand, using an artificial task would have enabled other researchers to see how a group of editors reacted toward the same text. Would the members of this group detect the same errors or weak points in their text? Would they all adopt the same measures and strategies to correct these errors or weak points? Now that we have a better idea of the strategies used by professional editors, it would be instructive to see how editors behaved in relation to the same text. Such an approach would no doubt give us insight into what types of problems are considered to be weak points by some editors but not as such by other editors and whether there were any similarities between the various solutions they put forward.

Similarities and Differences of Strategy

This case study provided us with an in-depth view of the strategies used by professional editors. We found that although our participants all used practically the same strategies for detecting and solving problems, whether real or potential, they did not resort to the same in like proportion. These differences thus provided a basis for identifying profiles (or process types) of professional editors in terms of reading, detection, and correction (Bisaillon, 2006). Take reading, for example. Based on a set of behaviors observed by Bisaillon, it is possible to distinguish three main editors reading profiles: the speed editor, the moderate editor, and the perfectionist. Speed editors do not have the time to read for comprehension or to check

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies

317

the modifications they have made. They are in a rush and only perform an evaluative reading. The emphasis is on the quality of the text and not on the intended readers comprehension (as with Editor 2, for example). Moderate editors go beyond speed editors single reading, but not as far as perfectionists. They read to comprehend a paragraph, and they perform one or two evaluations. Reading to check is performed on occasion, but this is not part of their usual behavior (as with Editor 1, for example). Finally, perfectionist editors perform at least three readings: one to comprehend, one to evaluate, and one to check. Usually, they will perform two evaluative readings (as with Editor 3, for example). There is a need to perform further research to validate such sets of behavior not only among professional editors but also among professional writers who revise. In the case of professional editors, it would no doubt be useful to correlate typical editor profiles with the mandates and the experience of professional editors. I am personally inclined to think that a mandate of linguistic revision performed on behalf of a publishing house will match up with a reading profile typical of a speed editor, whereas a mandate of rewriting might well be associated with the habits and behavior of a perfectionist editor. Furthermore, assuming that the same mandate of linguistic revision had been assigned to a novice editor, the resulting profile might well be that of the moderate editor.

Detection Strategies
Several researchers have claimed that the revision process is triggered by the errors contained in a text. Hayes (2004, p. 11), on the other hand, has qualified these assertions, noting that a reviser or editor may be prompted to find a better way to say what was saidthat is, to eliminate or alleviate weak points. Thus, detection may flow out of either errors or perceived weaknesses. Moreover, as the findings of our research have shown quite clearly, detection of the problems in a text is triggered both by real problems and by potential (or apprehended) problems. Whereas a detection strategy based on an editors sure knowledge is linked to the detection of real problems, all the other detection strategies are associated with the detection of potential problems. Figuring among the latter variety is the strategy of anticipation whereby the editor is prompted to read a text in search of certain types of problems that are anticipated ahead of encountering any actual instance of them. Our research has also confirmed that editors do not need to know how to correct a problem to be able to detect it, for they use detection strategies that are based on uncertain knowledge

318

Written Communication

or even a lack of knowledge. These findings thus stand in contradiction with those reported by Hacker et al. (1994).

Problem-Solving Strategies and the Solutions Adopted

While studying the problem-solving strategies used by the six participating editors, we also examined whether or not these strategies resulted in a solution. As a result of this analysis, we have been led to view such strategies in a different light than that of Hayes et al. (1987). In the view of this group, there were five main strategies: ignore the problem, delay action, search for information, revising, and rewriting. We did not observe any of the professional editors in the study ignoring problems they had managed to detect in the 2 hours during which each was taped. When they encountered a problem that required too much effort to solve, rather than ignoring it, they either postponed solving it or called it to the attention of the author. However, this does not mean that the professional editors did not ignore any problems. During the interviews, two of the six editors stated that they did not modify a passage in the text that was problematic because the time required to correct the passage was too great in relation to the potential overall improvement of the text. The editors postponed both solving a problem, when this would take a significant amount of time, and searching for a solution. Finally, in our view, revision and rewriting are not problem-solving strategies but rather solutions to problems. We consider that when performed by an editor, revising and rewriting both constitute means for correcting a given problem. Among the other potential solutions, there was that of making no modification whatsoever. The search for a solution ultimately led the editor to observe that the author was right and that s/he had been reacting to a false alarm. This type of situation occurred very slightly more often than did rewriting among the six participating editors (6.23% vs. 5.94%). Thus, we are unable to concur with Fitzgerald (1987), who stated that revision means making any changes at any point in the writing process (p. 484), because revising does not always imply modifying the text.

Conclusion
The findings of our research bring out the strategies used by professional editors in greater detail; they also deepen our understanding of the realities of professional editing, which to date have been described only rather

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies

319

sketchily. As such, they also yield a number of answers to the questions we had raised prior to undertaking this project. To begin with, we may assert, on the basis of the editors whom we had the opportunity to observe, that professional editing is a linear process. The subprocesses of evaluative reading, detection, and correction are always performed in the same order as the editor advances through the text line by line. Occasionally, s/he looks back to check something in relation either to what s/he has just read or to a change that s/he has just made, but this does not occur frequently. The editors observed only looked back through the text a total of six times. In 12 hours of work, this is not much. The work observed shows that revision is a linear process from the beginning of the text to the end. Professional editing is thus different from revision as practiced in the context of professional writing, where it is part of a recursive process. Furthermore, even for professionals, revision is not an automatic process. Often the editor must reflect to understand the meaning of a passage or reread the passage more than once. However, although it is not always possible to perform detection and correction automatically, I believe that with experience, certain aspects of the revision do become if not automatic at the very least second nature. At present, I have only partial answers to questions such as: Which operations are automatic from the start? Which ones become automatic with practice? and Which ones will always require reflection and judgment? Further research will be required to delve deeper into such automatic operations and how they develop, and into aspects that never become automatic simply because, by the very nature of revision, editors will always have to use their (best) judgment: It seems unlikely that the activity of editing as a whole would ever become completely automatic even in highly practiced individuals (Hayes, 2004, p. 10). The research I have directed concerning the revision process of professional editors opens up new avenues for further research on professional editing. Certain aspects must be validated, whereas others have yet to be discovered. One avenue worth exploring, for example, is to observe the ways in which word processing can be integrated into editing (e.g., is it absent from the editing process? Does it constitute a major component or even the main support of an editors work process?) (Bisaillon, 2007a, 2007b). Research must also be performed in various contextssuch as publishing houses, government offices, et cetera. Only then will we have a proper description of the realities of the profession in all their fullness and complexity.

320

Written Communication

Appendix
The Professional Editors Revision Process: A Linear Model
Process 1. Reading a paragraph for comprehension a sentence for evaluation purposes 2. Detection of problems a) Anticipation of a potential problemJ b) Comparison between an item in the text and knowledge stored in memory - certain knowledgeJ - uncertain knowledgeJ - lack of knowledgeJ a) No strategy b) Immediate strategy 1. Rereading operation 2. Reflection operation 3. Immediate search operation c) Postponed strategyJ Strategies Results

Potential problem

Genuine problem Potential problem Potential problem

3. Problem solving

Immediate solution 1. No modification 2. Revision 3. Rewriting Postponed solution 1. No solution 2. Suggestion to author 3. Tentative solution

4. Rereading a paragraph to make checks the entire text to make checks

Notes
1. This research project was made possible through a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC 2001-2004). Coresearchers on this project were G. Fortier and C. Prfontaine, both at the Universit du Qubec Montral; research assistants were C. Laflamme and S. Leclerc. 2. In the article, when I use we, I refer to the team or researchers and assistant researchers, and I, to me only, the author.

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies

321

References
Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy L. (2001). General introduction. A definition of writing and a presentation of the main models. In D. Alamargot & L. Chanquoy (Eds.), Through the models of writing (pp. 1-29). College Studies in Writing. Boston/Dordrecht, Netherlands/New York/ London: Kluwer. Allal, L., Chanquoy, L., & Largy, P. (Eds.). (2004). Revision. Cognitive and instructional processes. Boston/Dordrecht, Netherlands/New York/London: Kluwer. Bisaillon (2005). Rviser: Un travail qui sapprend [Editing: A work we can learn]. Unpublished manuscript, Universit Laval at Qubec, Canada. Bisaillon, J. (2006, September). Towards editors profiles. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference of the EARLI Special Interest Group on Writing (Sig-writing), University of Antwerp, Belgium. Bisaillon, J. (2007a). Professional editing: Emphasis on the quality of a text and its communicative effectiveness. In D. Alamargot, D. P. Terrier, & J.-M. Cellier (Eds.), Improving the production and understanding of written documents in the workplace (pp. 77-93). New York: Kluwer. Bisaillon, J. (Ed.) (2007b). La rvision professionnelle: Processus, stratgies et pratiques [Professional editing: Process, strategies, and practice]. Qubec, Canada: ditions Nota Bene. Bisaillon, J., Fortier, G., & Prfontaine, C. (2003, January). Le processus de rvision de rviseurs professionnels: Problmatique et mthodologie [Editing process of professional editors: Problematics of revision, and research methodology]. Paper presented at Les sminaires du CIRAL, Universit Laval, Qubec, Canada. Broekkamp, H., & van den Bergh, H. (1996). Attention strategies in revising a foreign language text. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Writing research: Theories, models and methodology (pp. 170-181). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Butterfield, E., Douglas, C., Hacker, J., & Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychological Review, 8(3), 239-297. Eriksson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research in revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 481-506. Flower, L. S., Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, Karen S., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37(1), 16-55. Fortier, G., & Prfontaine, C. (1994). Pauses et processus dcriture [Pauses, and writing process]. Revue des sciences de lducation, XX(2), 209-226. Gaunder, E. P. (1987). Revision using the word processor: Three case studies of experience student writers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Gufoni, V. (1996). Les protocoles verbaux comme mthode dtude de la production crite: Approche critique [Think aloud protocols to study written production: A critical review]. tudes de linguistique applique, 101, 20-32. Hacker, D. J., Plumb, C., Butterfield, E. C., Quathamer, D., & Heineken, E. (1994). Text revision: Detection and correction of errors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 65-78. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing. Theories, methods and individual differences and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

322

Written Communication

Hayes, J. R. (2004). What triggers revision? In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy, Revision. Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 9-20). Boston: Kluwer. Hayes, J. R., Flower, L. S., Schriver, K. S., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading, writing, and language processing (pp. 176-240). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Horning, A. (2002). Revision revisited. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Laflamme, C. (2007). Lautorvision et la rvision professionnelle: Un regard sur les contextes de production de lactivit rvisionnelle [Self-editing and professional editing: A look at the contexts of production in revision]. In J. Bisaillon (Ed.), La rvision professionnelle: Processus, stratgies et pratiques. Qubec City, Canada: ditions Nota Bene. Magee, J. M. (1995). Grace under pressure: A qualitative and quantitative case study of the revision process of a corporation president. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Piolat, A., Roussey, J. R., Olive, T., & Amada M. (2004). Processing time and cognitive effort in revision: Effects of error type and of working memory capacity. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision. Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 21-38). Boston/Dordrecht, Netherlands/New York/London: Kluwer. Prfontaine, C., & Fortier, G. (1997). Utilisation de la verbalisation dans des situations de recherche sur la production crite [Verbalization in research studies of writing]. In J.-Y. Boyer & L. Savoie-Zajc, Didactique du franais. Mthodes de recherche (pp. 219-228). Montral: Les ditions Logiques. Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., & van den Bergh, H. (2004). The study of revision as a writing process and as a learning-to-write-process. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision. Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 189-207). Boston/Dordrecht, Netherlands/New York/ London: Kluwer. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and remedial capabilities in childrens composing. In M. Martlew (Ed.), The psychology of written language: Development of educational perspectives (pp. 67-95). London: Wiley. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Jocelyne Bisaillon is a full professor at Universit Laval in Qubec City, Canada, where she teaches professional editing. As a researcher, for many years she devoted her work to the practice and teaching of revision in the classroom. Her most recent article on this theme is titled Effects of the Teaching of Revision Strategies in a Computer-Based Environment, which appeared in Writing in an Electronic Medium: Research With Language Learners (Houston, TX: Athelstan, 1999). Since that time, she has become interested in professional editing and, specifically, the editing process, about which she has written several soon-to-be-published texts, including Professional Editing in Improving the Production and Understanding of Written Documents in the Workplace (New York: Kluwer, 2007). She also recently served as editor of a book titled La rvision professionnelle: Processus, stratgies et pratiques (Qubec: ditions Nota Bene, 2007).