【正文】 she realized that she could use the word follow to express the Japanese idea contained in the word awaseru.Just as in her Japanese essay, Keiko moved to the second paragraph of her essay after pleting the introduction. She attempted to articulate a few ideas for the topic sentence of the second paragraph, but after failing to e up with suitable ideas and language to express those ideas, she skipped down to the conclusion. This jump to the conclusion was a major change from her position process for the Japanese essay in which she moved sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph down the page from the introduction to the conclusion. This nonlinear writing style of her English essay may have been part of the reason for the resulting limited overall organization and disjointed ideas in the second paragraph.While writing the text for her English essay, Keiko was constantly distracted by language concerns. Her protocol was interspersed with frequent translations. In addition to using an electronic dictionary, Keiko would frequently ask the researcher about word translations, spelling, or grammar. Evidence of Keiko39。s struggle to express herself in English can be seen throughout her protocol as she struggled to understand the meaning of and use unfamiliar terms. Keiko spent a lot of time and energy on English language concerns during this essay. The result was that she did not incorporate the ideas from the brainstorming session well into the body of the essay. She also struggled to find the relationships between ideas and could not tie them together well in the body. Her English protocol does not contain any words that express relationships between ideas. This was one difference from her Japanese protocol where she tried out different Japanese words for weakness and then used the words strength and weakness throughout her essay to demonstrate the relationships between her ideas. Keiko39。s difficulty in linking ideas in her English essay may have been the result of a limited English vocabulary. The final draft of her English essay clearly demonstrated the weak connections between the ideas. For example, the second paragraph only listed and described customs in the United States without explaining their relationship to Keiko39。s decision to follow them or not. While posing the body of the Japanese essay, Keiko referred back to the ideas that she brainstormed during the prewriting. However, before she wrote these ideas into the body of her essay, she further played with the ideas and changed them to better fit the point of her essay. Keiko also experimented with Japanese words in order to more clearly express these ideas. In contrast, while posing the body of her English essay, Keiko referred back to her brainstormed list of ideas but did not play with the ideas, which is the key difference in her writing processes between the L1 and L2 essays. This difference resulted in limited idea development during the L2 posing process and in the final product of the essay itself. [8]ConclusionsMany studies have looked in detail at the posing process and strategies of L2 writers。 however, few have examined the transfer of L1 posing strategies and processes to the L2 writing process (see Kamimura, 1996). This study suggests that L2 writers faced with writing tasks requiring an L2 proficiency level above that of the writer do not transfer L1 strategies to the L2 writing process, even though the writer may have a multiplicity of strategies available when pleting the same task in the L1. One implication is, then, that L2 writers faced with difficult writing tasks need to be taught pensating strategies in order to allow the transfer of L1 strategies to the L2 writing process.Compensating Strategies that Facilitate L1 Composing Process TransferA pensating strategy is any strategy that breaks the writing task down to allow the L2 writer to focus on smaller chunks of the task at one time and thus reduce the cognitive load. The most widely examined pensating strategy in the literature is translation, where lower L2 proficiency writers first write a draft in their L1 in order to solidify content and organization before dealing with the L2 issues of translation and rhetorical style (Arndt, 1987。 Cohen amp。 BrooksCarson, 2001。 Cumming, 1989。 Jones amp。 Tetroe, 1987。 Raimes, 1985。 Uzawa amp。 Cumming, 1989). This method of translation appears to appeal to some writers, but not to others, which suggests that individual preference plays a large role in the utility of this pensating strategy. Teaching only translation as a pensating strategy may not be enough. Writers may need to be exposed to a variety of strategies so that they can select strategies that match their individual preferences and writing styles.In addition to translation, another pensating strategy that may be more effective for some writers is using the L1 mainly during the brainstorming and idea organization stages of the writing process rather than writing a whole draft in the L1. Then, after all the ideas are on the page with a general understanding of how they will be organized into the paper, writers can generate the actual text for the essay in the L2 while following the previously established sequence of ideas. This strategy may work well for writers whose L2 proficiency is not high enough to allow them to pose pletely in English but also is not low enough to warrant writing a plete draft in the L1. [9]Keiko39。s English essay protocol lends some support to this strategy. Keiko brainstormed and organized her ideas in Japanese for the English essay and began her essay by using the wording in the essay question to produce her introduction. However, when she failed to produce a satisfactory topic sentence for the second paragraph, she went straight to her conclusion. If Keiko had followed the ideas and organization she had already created for the essay and simply transferred her ideas into English, she would have produced a signi