Chapter+27+Nancy+Nelson

Nancy Nelson Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi
 * Chapter 27 The Reading-Writing Nexus in Discourse Research** (Chapter Review by Angeli and Shannon)

There are shared cognitive aspects of reading and writing, the participant relations among readers and writers who shape the discourse, and the intertextual relations effected by people who, as readers and writers, engage in discourse practices in sociocultural and historical contexts. -Research in this area since 1970s
 * Reading, Writing, and Meaning Making**

-Whether a study is considered reading research or writing research depends on the community to which the researcher belongs, the forum in which the report is published, and how the study is framed.

-Once comprehension was viewed as the making of meaning instead of the reception of meaning, it was easier to see the connections to writing.

-Methods to study the nexus: text recall, study of eye movement, and think-aloud protocols

-Tierney and Pearson (1983): Composing model of reading was proposed; the two (reading and writing) could no longer be viewed as simple inverses with one strictly generative and the other strictly receptive.

-Flower and Hayes (1981): Influential description of the cognitive processes of writing; they applied the problem-solving approach associated with cognitive science to the process of composing. They found a nonlinear, recursive, and hierarchical portrayal of writing in which planning, translating, and reviewing appeared as the major components.


 * Reviewing requires reading with an evaluative component.

-Studies of revising have shown different sorts of revisions at varying points in the composing process and differences between expert and novice writers... confirming the importance of critical reading in writing.

-Although cognitive and social have been considered dichotomous categories, it important to consider the social matters in the discourse research that is considered cognitive. Knowledge is cognitive, but it is acquired and applied socially.

-Much of the research being done on the cognitive aspects of writing is being conducted in Europe.

Reading and writing must rely on a repertoire of discourse knowledge that has some shared components and is acquired in both activities. Can performance in one predict performance in the other? 1970s and 1980s Correlational and Intervention studies Correlational (Shanahan, 1984): Variation in reading measures could explain almost half of the variance in writing. Shanahan and Lomax (1986): Interactive configuration in which writing influences reading and reading influences writing, not one-way.
 * Acquiring and Applying Discourse Knowledge**

Individuals of various ages acquire a particular form of discourse as they read representative texts (Charney & Carlson, 1995). WE NEED MODELS!!!
 * Mimesis** (imitation) is an effective means of learning

**Contextualizing Cognition** Discourse communities; socially-oriented perspective on the locus of knowledge In mid 1980s, much of the discourse research took a social turn; cultural groups were considered as meaning-makers; everyone collectively constructs knowledge. Some researchers considered the social positioning and power relations in such groups (Lankshear, 1999; Smagorinsky, 2001).

Researchers considered the **unity of mind with activity** as it occurs in context (including larger cultural and historical context). Activity theory (Vygotsky, 1934/1986; Leontiev, 1947/1981) Dialogism (Bakhtin, 1981) Functional Grammar (Halliday, 1985) Practice Theory (Bourdieu, 1977).

p. 438 last full paragraph Genres????

**The Participant Connection** Audience; writers read and write their readers; anticipate possible responses; became a research issue in 1970s and 1980s "Social cognition": ability to consider perspectives of others and to make assumptions about what they will want to gain from the reading (Rubin, 1984). -Piaget (1923/1932) and Flavell (1966)
 * Writing for Readers**

Developmental considerations for audience awareness? Older students could modify a text based on audience consideration.

For scholarly texts, such as research articles, members of the audience are considered to be knowledgeable readers who are potentially skeptical with respect to the knowledge claims being made, so disciplinary writers use various textual means to foster relationships (Hyland, 2000, 2001, 2002). First-person pronouns can mark inclusion of readers, hedges can help to ward off objections and show respect for readers' possible disagreements, and evaluations can guide readers to the same conclusions the writer reached. I always appreciate when the researcher is clear and forthcoming with the LIMITATIONS of the study. There are important disciplinary and genre differences in the extent to which these and other devices are used.

Digital reading What happens to a writer and reader when the text is hypertext? Most dramatic response: Reader becomes author because the boundary between the two is blurred (Bolter, 1991). Landow (1992) Hypertextual convergence between reader and writer. Nonlinear nature of hypertext empowers the reader. Spiro et al (1992) Flexibility provided by hypertext seems to enhance certain kinds of reading and learning, according to the cognitive flexibility theory. Challenges of reading hypertext include disorientation and not having same authorial guidance provided by text.


 * Writing Collaboratively **

It seems that writing is much more collaborative than it sometimes appears in a culture that celebrates the individual author. Ede and Lunsford (1990) addressed the role of reading as text is produced in collaborative writing. This "reviewing" (Flower & Hayes, 1981) is seen as a critical reading by one of the collaborators.

Sharples et al (1993) identified three patterns of collaborative writing: parallel, sequential, and reciprocal.

then they're combined in the end. || at various intervals after they are written by individuals so that parts fit together and are consistent || produced || as they write || completion of a draft or sections of a draft. || [|Electronic technology facilitates collaborative writing]; but there are still problems with keeping track of various versions, working from the appropriate version, and being able to identify contributors for various elements (Noel & Robert, 2004).
 * || **Writing** || **Reviewing** ||
 * Parallel || different individuals write different sections at the same time,
 * Sequential || One person writes a section and then passes it along to the next. || Review previous segments as the next is
 * Reciprocal || the pair or team actually writes together || Reviewing and commenting by collaborators
 * Single-writer for team || One person writes for the team (Lowry et al, 2004) || Reviewing with comments by team members on

Another collaborative element in discourse practices: RESPONSE


 * Writers ask friends or colleagues to read drafts & provide suggestions
 * Different from formal reviewers
 * Respondents do not receive credit or assume responsibility for the text; instead, given appreciation through acknowledgements
 * In schools, teachers are "situated readers" (Sperling, 1998).




 * Ulichny & Watson-Gegeo (1989): Teacher responses often given in conferences following the ff. pattern:[[image:photo[2].jpg width="546" height="399"]]


 * Issues of power

**Reading the Writer**

Haas and Flower (1988): Rhetorical Reading - readers actively trying to understand the author's intent, the context, and how other readers might respond


 * Author-oriented reading on the part of the experts contrasted with the reading of students, who gave little attention to the author (Geisler, 1991 - philosophers; Bazerman, 1985 - physicists; Wineburg, 1991, 2001 - historians)

Q: What can teachers do to develop thye author concept and enhance awareness of the person or persons who produced the text?

** THE INTERTEXTUAL CONNECTION ** All writing is __intertextual__ (texts relate to other texts), and __social__ (writers relate not only to their readers but also to writers of other texts).

Mikhail Bakhtin

French avant-garde journal published by the Éditions du Seuil (1960-82). For two decades //Tel Quel// succeeded in gathering under its aegis an impressive constellation of names that stand for what is most noteworthy and provocative in French intellectual thought and writing at this time, including Barthes, Georges Bataille, Derrida, Faye, Foucault, Guyotat, Kristeva, Ponge, Ricardou, Denis Roche, Sollers, and Todorov.

Julia Kristeva



Julia Kristeva - **Intertextuality** is the shaping of texts' meanings by other texts. It can include an author’s borrowing and transformation of a prior text or to a reader’s referencing of one text in reading another (//writing from sources, reading to write, and writing from reading).// Writing Focused On One Text: 1. Summarizing (e.g. summaries, abstracts, table of contents) 2. Critiquing (e.g. book reviews) Hyland (2000) - Findings: A. Positive comments tend to address global aspects of the book, while negative comments addressed more specific aspects; and B. Reviewers opened with praise but does not necessarily reflect the overall assessment 3. Translating - changing a text from one language to another Q: Which is better: a translation that communicates the author's sense to people with another cultural frame but make considerable changes in wording or a more literal translation that fails to communicate that sense? Writing and Positioning Relative to MultipleTexts: 1. discourse synthesis - integration of material from m ultiple textual sources as the writers create new texts 3 major transformations - organizational, selective, connective 2. positioning - what writers do to indicate their position relative to other writers 3. hypertext- provides links to relevant texts machines Citing Relevant Texts: Citations give an indication of which texts and which people have been significant to writers when they were in the role of reader. ** Conclusion: The Nexus ** Cognitive connection - reading and writing as parallel not inverses Participating connection - readers and writers as partners in meaning-making rather than separate and independent entities Intertextual connection - texts incorporate other texts instead of standing alone as discrete units
 * summarizing + evaluating
 * topic-comment patterns
 * supported through reference to other relevant texts
 * instability of the primary text
 * Patchwriting and cyberplagiarism - writers' appropriation of other writers' work
 * NRC (2000): the Internet is at opnce one of the world's largest libraries and one of the world's largest copying

Reading and Writing image from: http://www.k12reader.com/the-relationship-between-reading-and-writing/ Hypertext image from: http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/MM/OLD_BSC/node11.html Collaborative writing image from: http://warkscol.wordpress.com/2009/12/