【正文】 her posing processes and very little text written on the page (see Appendix B). Without any new text to reread, her ideas became stale and subsequently broke her stream of consciousness. Putting her ideas into English was such an overwhelming task that it only occurred when Miyoko could think of the language relatively easily. Her English essay protocol is mostly made up of rehearsing. It was occasionally spotted with writing, but only in small chunks. Most of the ideas that she rehearsed never made it into her essay. For example, in one five minute period she wrote two words, Japanese custom. Over the next five minutes she revised, read, talked to the researcher, made extraneous remarks about things unrelated to the essay, and spent lengthy periods of time rehearsing before she wrote her next idea down, I like another country custom too. Miyoko was not able to take the ideas from her stream of consciousness and translate them into text while posing the English essay. Her Japanese posing process of think, write, and reread was pletely disrupted. [6]Another factor that influenced Miyoko39。s English posing processes until they were dissimilar to her Japanese posing processes.MiyokoMiyoko39。s writing never fell into a recognizable cycle during her English essay. Her writing patterns were perforated by struggles with English. Her writing would usually be interrupted midsentence by a language concern, whether spelling, grammar, word choice, or doubt about the meaning conveyed by language she had assembled. The struggle of putting her ideas into coherent English seemed to dismantle the smooth, reciprocal cycle of writing which was so readily apparent during her Japanese essay. [4]One section of Katsue39。s Japanese and English essay posing process and strategies. They also pare and contrast those processes and strategies for similarities and differences. KatsueThe format and length of Katsue39。 Cumming, 1989). [1]Uzawa and Cumming (1989) observed two distinct strategies that helped sustain the writing process of their lower L2 proficiency subjects. One they termed keeping the standard and the other lowering the standard. Keeping the standard strategies were used in L2 writing in order to maintain the level of writing achieved in the L1. These were strategies such as taking more time, revising extensively, and seeking assistance. Lowering the standard strategies were used in order to plete the writing task within a reasonable amount of time and without excessive mental effort. These were strategies such as reducing information, simplifying syntax, substituting lexical items, and ignoring reader concerns. The subjects in the study produced L2 papers that had less content than their L1 writing, but about equal quality to their L1 writing. Overall, the L1 aided in keeping the standard. If the L1 was not used, we can surmise that the quality of writing would have been lower than it was and the standard would have had no checks and balances in place to keep it on a higher plane.Several studies have looked at the effect of posing in the L1 and then translating into the L2 (Cohen amp。 Tetroe, 1987). However, lower L2 proficiency writers rely more heavily on their L1 during the writing process in order to sustain the process and prevent a plete breakdown in language (Arndt, 1987。L1 to L2 Writing Process and Strategy Transfer: A Look at Lower Proficiency WritersAbstractThis article examines the posing process and writing strategies of three lower proficiency Japanese subjects in their L1 and L2. This study found that while some L1 strategies may transfer to the L2 writing processes, lower proficiency writers struggle in utilizing all strategies that could help their writing process in the L2. The results suggest several pensating strategies for dealing with L2 language issues and facilitating L1 posing process transfer. Finally, suggestions for teachers are given so that teachers can help students discover and utilize existing strategies within their L1 and L2 posing processes as well as pensating strategies to improve their L2 writing. Review Of LiteratureWriting in a second language (L2) is a challenging and plex process. While the first language (L1) writing process includes producing content, drafting ideas, revising writing, choosing appropriate vocabulary, and editing text, writing in an L2 involves all of these elements jumbled with second language processing issues. In the case of lower L2 proficiency writers, these L2 issues can overwhelm the writing process, even to the point of a plete breakdown of the process (Bereiter amp。 Cumming, 1989。 BrooksCarson, 2001。s prewriting varied between the two essays. During the Japanese essay, Katsue spent 8 minutes making a list of ideas under two separate headings before beginning to draft her essay. The ideas were embodied in a variety of words, phrases, and sentences under each heading. The idea generation for the English essay took 18 minutes and looked more like a first draft without any organization. Despite the identical structure of the two essay topics, there were no headings to identify the two options in her English essay prewriting as there had been in her Japanese. Katsue wrote down her ideas pletely in English as she brainstormed in Japanese. Similar to her Japanese prewriting, she used a mixture of words, phrases, and sentences to write down her ideas。s English essay protocol clearly illustrated her fragmented posing processes. In this section, she was writing the sentence Some people think our own custom is monsense, but it is wrong. Before writing the sentence, she reread three previously written sentences. Using Japanese, she evaluated these statements and came up with the idea that people think their own customs are just monsense. So far this follows the read and rehearse posing processes found in her Japanese essay, but this was where the similarity ended. She immediately began looking up the Japanese word