Article published in:
Writing(s) at the Crossroads: The process–product interface
Edited by Georgeta Cislaru
[Not in series 194] 2015
► pp. 171–182

A graph theory approach to online writing data visualization

| ITEM-TERs and University of Turku, Finland
| ITEM-TERs and HEC Montreal, Canada

There are currently several systems for collecting online writing data using keystroke logging. Each of these systems provides reliable and very precise data. Unfortunately, with the exception of very brief recordings, such huge amounts of data are generated that it is virtually impossible to analyze them. In this chapter, we describe a representation technique based on graph theory that allows the writing process to be understood from a fresh viewpoint. This application was originally intended to represent the data provided by ScriptLog, but the concepts can be applied in other contexts, too.

Keywords: graph theory, keystroke logging, visualization, writing process
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 05 August 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.194.09leb
References
Ahlsén, Elisabeth, and Sven Strömqvist
1999 “ScriptLog: A Tool for Logging the Writing Process and its Possible Diagnostic Use.” In Augmentative and Alternative Communication: New Directions in Research and Practice, ed. by Filip Loncke, John Clibbens, Helen Arvidson, and Lyle Lloyd, 144–149. London: Whurr Publishers.Google Scholar
Caporossi, Gilles, Dragos Cvetkovic, Ivan Gutman and Pierre Hansen
1999a “Variable Neighborhood Search for Extremal Graphs 2. Finding Graphs with Extremal Energy.” Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 39: 984–996.Google Scholar
Caporossi, Gilles, Ivan Gutman, and Pierre Hansen
1999b “Variable Neighborhood Search for Extremal Graphs 4. Chemical Trees with Extremal Connectivity Index.” Computers and Chemistry 23(5): 469–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chenouf, Yvanne, Jean Foucambert, and Michel Violet
1996 Genèse du texte, vol. 2 [INRP research report].Google Scholar
Chesnet, David, and Denis Alamargot
2005 “Analyse en temps réel des activités oculaires et grapho-motrices du scripteur: intérêts du dispositif Eye and Pen.” L’année psychologique 105(3): 477–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doquet, Claire, and Christophe Leblay
2014 “Temporalité de l’écriture et génétique textuelle: vers un nouveau langage?” In Actes du Congrès mondial de linguistique française vol. 8, ed. by Franck Neveu, Peter Blumenthal, Linda Hriba, Annette Gerstenberg, Judith Meinschaefer, and Sophie Prévost, 2767–2781. Berlin. áhttp://​www​.shs​-conferences​.org​/articles​/shsconf​/abs​/2014​/05​/shsconf​_cmlf14​_01204​/shsconf​_cmlf14​_01204​.htmlñGoogle Scholar
Faigley, Lester, and Stephen Witte
1981 “Analysing Revision.” College Composition and Communication 32: 400–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Amt Lykke
1999 “Logging Target Text Production with Translog.” In Probing the Process in Translation. Methods and Results, ed. by Gyde Hansen, 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
2006 “Research Methods in Translation: Translog.” In Computer Key-Stroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications, ed. by Kirk Sullivan and Eva Lindgren, 95–105. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Leblay, Christophe, and Gilles Caporossi
2014 Temps de l’écriture. Enregistrements et représentations. Louvain-La-Neuve: Academia-L’Harmattan (coll. Sciences du langage: Carrefours et points de vue).Google Scholar
Leblay, Christophe
2009 “Les invariants processuels. En deça du bien et du mal écrire.” Pratiques 143/144: 153–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leijten, Mariëlle, and Luuk Van Waes
2005 “Writing with Speech Recognition: The Adaptation Process of Professional Writers.” Interacting with Computers 17(6): 736–772. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, Eva, Kirk Sullivan, Urban Lindgren, and Kristyan Spelman Miller
2007 “GIS for Writing: Applying Geographic Information System Techniques to Data-Mine Writing’s Cognitive Processes.” In Writing and Cognition: Research and Applications, ed. by Gert Rijlaarsdam (series ed.) and Mark Torrance, Luuk Van Waes and David Galbraith (vol. eds.), 83–96. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Matsuhashi, Ann
1987 “Revising the Plan and Altering the Text.” In Writing in Real Time, ed. by Ann Matsuhashi, 197–223. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Novak, Joseph D
1990 “Concept Maps and Vee Diagrams: Two Metacognitive Tools for Science and Mathematics Education.” Instructional Science 19: 29–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strömqvist, Sven, and Henrik Karlsson
2002 ScriptLog for Windows – User’s manual. Technical Report. University of Lund: Department of Linguistics and University College of Stavanger, Centre for Reading Research.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Kirk, and Eva Lindgren
(Eds.) 2006 Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing. Methods and Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Van Waes, Luuk, and Peter Jan Schellens
2003 “Writing profiles: The effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers.” Journal of Pragmatics 35 (6): 829–853. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Waes, Luuk, and Mariëlle Leijten
2006 “Inputlog: New Perspectives on the Logging of On-Line Writing Processes in a Windows Environment.” In Computer Key-Stroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications, ed. by Kirk Sullivan, and Eva Lindgren, 73–93. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wengelin, Åsa
2006 “Examining Pauses in Writing: Theories, Methods and Empirical Data.” In Computer Key-Stroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications, ed. by Kirk Sullivan, and Eva Lindgren, 107–130. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

No author info given
2018. Références bibliographiques. In Le processus de textualisation [Champs linguistiques, ], ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
Feltgen, Quentin, Georgeta Cislaru, Christophe Benzitoun, F. Neveu, S. Prévost, A. Steuckardt, G. Bergounioux & B. Hamma
2022. Étude linguistique et statistique des unités de performance écrite : le cas de et. SHS Web of Conferences 138 ► pp. 10001 ff. DOI logo
Foucambert, Denis, Tracy Heranic, Christophe Leblay, Maarit Mutta, Minjing Zhong, F. Neveu, S. Prévost, A. Steuckardt, G. Bergounioux & B. Hamma
2022. Intégration de la visualisation dans l’analyse de processus complexes : écritures et réécritures dans un corpus multilingue universitaire. SHS Web of Conferences 138 ► pp. 06010 ff. DOI logo
Leblay, Christophe
2018. Génétique textuelle et écritures mono- et plurilingues. TTR 29:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 january 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.