A study investigated the oral and written language used in college student groups working on draft revisions. Subjects were 19 freshmen in a composition class. Data were gathered in two speech situations: (1) students and instructor engaged in revision; and (2) a three-student peer group revision session with no teacher present. The use of embedded imperatives (modal verbs), hedged language forms, and interrogatives employed as directives to affect revisions were quantified, and the effectiveness of their use in promoting actual draft revisions was evaluated. Results indicate that when students participate in draft revision sessions and are given the opportunity to discuss each other's drafts, inside or outside the classroom, they typically use language rich in hedged forms. However, in the small group without the instructor, students produced many more directives and reported receiving more in-depth feedback from peers. Hedged forms were used much more in oral language, with written language more balanced in modals and hedges. Written comments illustrate that students expect that their suggestions will be implemented. The findings support the usefulness of group interaction during revision and suggest that the language of negotiation, natural to student discourse, could be used effectively by the teacher. (MSE)