【正文】 to take as much time as they needed to pose their essay and they signaled the researcher when they finished posing. ResultsTwo protocols for each of the three subjects were collected, transcribed and then reviewed and analyzed for posing processes and strategies. The descriptions below highlight the main features of each subject39。 BrooksCarson, 2001。 Uzawa amp。 Cumming, 1989。 Scardimalia,1987). L1 Use to Drive L2 WritingAlthough many L2 writers use their L1 in some way while writing in the L2, the amount of L1 used during L2 writing is not the same for all L2 writers. In general, proficient L2 learners do not depend heavily on the L1 to drive the writing process because they have a sufficient level of L2 automaticity and knowledge to think and plan in the L2 (Jones amp。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。 Scardimalia,1987). L1 Use to Drive L2 WritingWriting 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。 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。 Raimes, 1985。 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。 Kobayashi amp。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。 however, unlike her Japanese prewriting, Katsue did not use an even balance of all three but used mostly plete sentences. Part of her idea generation for her English essay was finding the English that best expressed her ideas. This was evidenced by the numerous revisions made to these sentences before Katsue began posing her essay. [3]While posing her Japanese essay, there were three triggers that caused her posing process to cycle from writing into various binations of rehearsing ideas, revising, editing, and reading. These triggers were pleting a sentence, searching for a word to more clearly express an idea, and not knowing how to plete a thought. After pleting a sentence, Katsue would usually reread what she had just written, sometimes evaluating it before continuing on with the next sentence. For example, Katsue finished posing the sentence, When I think about it, I abandon my plaint halfway through (see Appendix A). When she pleted the sentence, Katsue went back and reread it, giving her a new idea that pushed her to write the next sentence, This is because even though I think it in my heart, it is very difficult for me to say it in words. After pleting this sentence, Katsue thought of a summary idea, but decided not to include it in her text. She then reread her last sentence, which gave her a direction for the next, and she began writing it down. Being unable to think of the right word midsentence also caused Katsue to reread what she had written, occasionally make revisions, and rehearse words to match the idea. In one section of the protocol, Katsue was in the middle of writing the sentence However, neither of these apply to my approach. She stopped writing and wondered what word to use halfway through