ILL

NAMING WHAT WE KNOW

Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies

l'dtlrd lry LINDA ADLER-KASSNER ELIZABETH WARDLE

N 0 IS

UTAH STATE UNIVE RSITY PRESS l.ogan

ILL N

METACONCEPT Writing Is an Activity and a Subjed of Study

Elizabeth Wardle and Linda Adlcr-Kassner

Writing is created, produced, distributed, and used for a variety of pur-poses. In thi cnse, it is an tulwily in which individuals and group engage I lowcvet, the production, consumption, circulation, distribu-tion, and of writing are also areas of inquiry. Researchers in anum-ber of fields (including, but not limited to, rhetoric and composition, linguistics, and literacy studies) investigate questions about writing. The'>e include:

• l low have forms ot writing developed over time? (J)nccJ(l\'ons of writing do people have, and what values are sug-

th\:J conceptions? \\'hat writing practices and processes are encouraged by these conceptions? Where do the e conceptions come from?

• I lo" is writing produced b}· individuals and group!>, for what purpos-e'>, and \\ith what implications or con equences?

• I lm\ are auitudes towarrl the production and uses of writing shaped b) indi,iduals and groups within sperific contexts?

• How have difierent to haping the production of writing taken fom1, with what motivation , and to what end!>?

• How is \\liting a tcchnolOg), and how do \\TILing technologies impact h()w writing happens and what can be done with

Outc;ide of scholars involved in the stud} of writing, the idea that writ-ing i'> not only an activity in which people engage but also a subject of study often comes as a surprise. partially because people tend to expe-ricn<c writing as a finished product that repreo;ems ideas in seemingly rigid forms but also becattse writing is often seen a a "basic skill" that a person can learn once and for all and not thin\... about again.

Research in \VTiling and rhetoric has demon trated that the e ideas about writing do not match the wa\ that writing works and

16 P RT 1. THRfSitOI 0 r l'l s or \\ Rl liNt.

hut th i ... mon• complt-:x ' it'\\ of "' ititw i I . I i l o ., not o ne I r.n "" icl ·I 'l.Ut'< 01 lllH t.'l h)Od hnond tlw fit' ld In f' 1 1 . · t rt'"tul - II • , .t< • to >t < o n.,rdt·t <·d \ uc-

. ' '' mu t kat n to 'llHh t'XJ>en It ion' for ' ' t' . ' J.X'nfi · · · ' ' 11 mg '' 11 hm c conte'\h ,md parunpatc in tho.,t• to .,nnw t'<' •

. conn·pt th,u "I iting i ... a t o f 't u<h fll u•l/l fLI ,\< 1!\ '' ll hecau...<· it ron t t,\H'IH'S popul.u Hion ""

a basic. <.' e \kill \\ lwn lt'at hn-. am i le-u .. r. \ of llllt" \Hllm., a' com pi I • 'tud\ o . . t''\ enoug l In n·quin• .• md I erognilt' that th<· di!f; r • t suggt''L" th_e' ,Jwuld lt•at n, and teach \H iting

} ,· .. tnt'· t t_e' .tre I hen Ill\ ued to bell.\w difTt•H'tHh and to chan

t lt 11 conccpuom of wl . 1 . • • • • • gc that e:xte d ( 1 • 1.l Is and tht' ll prMtices around ,,Jiting

n rom t concepuon,.

IL L

CONCEPT 1 Writing Is a Social and Rhetorical Activity

1.0 WRIT I N G IS A SO C IAL A N D RHETORI CAL AC TIVITY

Kevin Roozen

lt is common for us to talk about writing in terms of the particular text we Me working on . Consider, for example, how often writers describe what they arc doing by saying "I am writing an email" or ''I'm writing a report" or "I'm writing a note." shorthand description tend to col-lapse the acti\ity of writing into the act of single writer inscribing a text In doing o , they obscure two foundational and closel}' related notions of writing: writer are engaged in the work of making meaning for particu-lar audiences and purpo<>cs, and writers a re always connected to other p('oplc.

N n ' r<> a e doing the rhetorical work of addressing the needs an · ere of &.?>articular audience, even if unconsciously. The tech-nical writers at a pharmaceutical company work to provide consumers of medication with information the) need about dosage and potential side effects. The father 11Titing a few comments on a birthday card to his daughter craft' tatement.s intended to communicate his love for her.

the audience for an act of writing might be the \\Titer him-elf. A oung man jotting in hi dian. for example, might be document-

ing life cwnt.s in order to better understand his feelings about them. A child cribbling a phrase on the palm of her hand might do so as a wav of reminding herself to feed the familr pets, clean her room. or finish her homework. Writing. then, is always an anempt to addre the needs of an audience.

In working to accomplish their purpose and addre an audience's need . writers draw upon many o ther people. :--Jo matter how isolated a writer may seem as she its at her computer, tvpes on the touch pad of her smartphone, or makes notes on a legal pad, he i al\'.-av dra\1ing upon the ideas and experience of countless othet . The technical '"Titers at a pharmaceutical compan) drav. upon the ideas of others

il m)> (/)0 (J)r -m o:lJ

(/) () I 0 0 r 0 11

18 P-\RT I : ltiRl "ll0l0 fi'TS or \\ Rl I lr-;t,

the'. wotk \\ith. <\.'the\ n·ad thci1 collt•,tgut•s' t•.u lkr Whion, oil he infor· matmn th.n mil .tppe.tt on tht• l.thd. T lwr .ll,o nmm·n tlwmsrh n 10 othet the\ enga.g: \\ith .llw l.m .1ho111 thd1 p1 odun .. \Hitt t.• n tl\ J.ttliiO .md the deCJ'>IOih ofl,\\\'o\llh ol'•'-Ot ia1cd \\ ith IIH'dit,llions that Jla\c lx-t•n 'euled 01 ma\ be pt.·ndmg, Tht• l.lt lwr n.tfting hillhd.t\ wisht·, 10 hi daughter might recall .tnd con,fiuu,h· or UIHon,<ioush rt•,t'ltc • • l Olll· ment.s hi own parenL'. mduded on tlw hi1 thcla • c;ud.., he 1nciH·d

a ch1ld . \.!. I work to crafl this e:-.plan.llion of' wr iling <L'i a social ancl .tcthit). I am implicith .md t•xplid th 1 csponding to and IX'ill!{

mfluenced by the matl\' peopk mn>ht•d in 1hi., pwject, thow with \\hom I have earlier drafts. and l'\ Cll thost.• ''how cholar.,hip J ha\ e react m·er the past thirteen .

Writing puts the writer m contact with other p ·ople, but the '>cKial nature of \\TIUng goe · be\ond the pt.•oplc '' dra\\ upon and think abouL h al o encompa.! e the counlless peoplt• who haw '>hapcd the t:;enre,, tool'>. anifacts. technologies. and pl.tce-. "1 iter-. act with a, UIC)

needs of their audiences. The gt'nrc of mt'dication label , btrthda\ \mhe. and enLn· · · 1 · e \\ntt.•ro; use,> ta\c undt•t gone countlc:

tlS the' ha,·e been haped b) wr; ter.. in \arious tinw-. and places. The technolomes 'ith h . 1 · · · o· ' \\ JC 1 '"nters act-mcludmg computer harclwan• and oftwa.re: the Q"'ERTI' ke\board; ballpoint pens and lead pendk and legal pads. j ournals, and Post-It no tes-ha\'e also lx-en shaped b; manvpeo I · . · . e aero ume place. All of these a\'ailable l wanl : pc tM· 1011 "e take up \\hen we \\Tite have been shaped b\ and4hro lltt ·

of mam· others who ha\e I fit th · · · . e e1r trace on and 1nfonn our uses of tho e tools, even jf,,e are not aware of iL

Because · nfl' "th . It co 1Cts \\1 the horthand dco;niption \\e use to talk and thmk about writing und d ' · · . . • erstan mg wnung :1!i a socta l and rhetorical acth· It) can be in its compi'"XJ·"-. \\' "I . . .1• · ._ ·r e say wntmg an t'ma1 or am writing a note " · h · • o;ugge ung t at ''e are composing alone aJld with complete autonom,· \\he · c: • • . . · n, m 1act, \\Tiling can ne\er be anvt.hing bu1 a SOCial and rhetorical ac• · • . -. connectmg us to other people acro-.s time and pace m an attempt to re d d . . spon a equately to the needs of an audience.

\\1nle thl concept rna be bl . ) trou esome, understanding it has a \'ari· et\' of benefits If teache h 1 ·d . · rs can e P comide1· their potential au tence and purpose h s, t ey can hettet help th em understand what makes a text effecli\'e or t h . . h no , w at tt accomph'>hes and what it falls

s on of accomplishing Co 'd · . . ' • · • 0'11 enng \\Trtmg as rhetorical helps learn-

ers the needs of d ' . d d an au renee what the audience an oe not know wh · d ' f . r . • } au lence memb ·n. might need certain kind'

o m,onnauon what the d ' ' au lence find<; persua-,ive (or not) , and so

ConcPpl I : Writmg ,1 Soria/ & Rh('lorica/1\cttvtty 19

on. the rhetorical work of writing is essential if writ-<''" are 10 make informed , pwductivc de< isiom about which genres to employ, which languages to act with, which texts to reference, and so on. Rccogniting the deeply social and rhetorical d imensions of writing can hd p administrators and other stakeholders make better decisions about cu1 riettla and assessment.

1 . 1 W RITING I S A KNOWLED G E- MAK I NG A CTIVITY

Heidi Estrem

\'\'riting is often defined by what it i.r. a text, a product; less visible is what it can du. generate new thinking (sec 1.5, .. Writing Mediates Acti .. ity"). A'> an activit) undertaken to bring new understandings, writ-ing in this sense is not about crafting a 'lentence or perfecting a text but about mulling over a problem, thinking with others, and exploring new ideas or bringing di parate ideas together (see "Metaconcept: Writing 1 an Activity and a Subject of Study") . Writers of all kinds-from self-identified \\Tite rs to bloggers to workplace teams to academic research-ers-have had the experience of coming upon new ideas as a result of writing. Individuallv or in a richly interactive emironment, in the class-

N wOfkplae' or at home, writers usc writing to generate knowl-ti:&y d i<!}'t ha .. e before.

Common cultural conceptions of the act of writing often emphasize magic and discovery, as though ideas are buried and the writer uncovers them, rather than recogni1ing that "the act of creating ideas, not find-ing them, is at the heart of ignificant (Flower and Hayes 19 0, 22; ee al o 1.9, "\\'riting Is a Technology through Which Writers Create and Recreate Meaning"). Unde rstanding and identif)ing how writing i tn itself an act of thinking can help people more intentionally recog-ni7e and engage with writing as a creati"e activit), inextricably linked to thought. We don't simpl)' think first and then write ( ee 1.6, ''Writing I

t\atural") . We \\-Tite to think. Text'> where this kind of knowledge making take place can be formal

or informal, and they are ometimes ephemeral: journal (digital and othenYise) , collaborative whi teboard d iagrams, and complex doodles <tnd marginalia, for example. The e texts are generative and central to meaning making even though we often don't identin them as uch. Recognizing the!>e kinds of texts for their producthe value then broad-ens our understanding of literacy to include a rich range of everyday

{/) 0 :r 0 0 r 0 11

' c

20 P RT 1 TIIRl SHOt f) < 0!'-:< I Pl '> 01 \\ Rl I 11\iC

.md \\Otl..pl.tn·h.lscd gt'nre' l,u hc\ntHI lllOI(' lt.ldi tion.lllv Jcrogni1t•d <)nt''· thc' e ·L' "rnmg \l',t'fulh 'i'>ihlt• tht· 10k•s .tnd pur-p<N''l>f \\titing .. B.u ton .mel ll.unihon 199X: I kath 2012).

L ndc1 t.mding the knmdt:dgt'-nl.lking potl'nti.ll of "1 iting t.ln hdp pt•ople en agt• more purpo,t·fulh \1 ith "1 iting lot Yan ing p111 poses. Jn

t:ducation. l(n· e:-.:amplt.·. l,lrllh) hom anm, thl' cut I irulum 110\1 often include .1 wider range of '' 1 iti ng '' 1 .ltt'git'' in tlwiJ rour.c,, 'I hat

teaching th<" tnOil' '''iblt• dbdplitltll) ronwntions of \Hiting Ill then field,, tacult\ aho integt .lit.> "1 iting a,.,ignments th,n highlight ,,h.u b Je,, ,;,ible but high I) gcnl'rati\e alxmt "r iting in IIMm rontcxL: \\1 iting' rapaci" for deeper undl'J,tanding' and n<.>\\ im.ighh ('<"t' \non 2010 for one historical .tc<ount of tht• shift in hm, lacult' fwm auo 'campu' teach writing). B \Ond tlw cla\sroom, pl'ople can t:mplo e:-..ploraton, mquin-based \\1 it.ing ta,ks like h l'C\\riting, planning, and mappincr- omet.ime mdi,idual and oltc.•n coll.thoratiH•. fhcse

can help all writer::. mCJ ca."><.> their comprehen,ion of matt•rial \\hile aJ,o practicing \\ith tt' tual romcntiom in Ill'\' gcmc . TI1rough the kno\\ledge-making wl<· of \\Iiting mote ,j,iblt·, people gain e:\.-perience \\ith under:o,tanding ho\\ the'e sometime: ephemeral and often-infonna l of \Hiting are critical to their de,·elopmem and growth.

1.2 I L L I WRITING ADDRESSES, INVOKES, AND/OR CREATES AUDIENCES

Andrea A. Lunsford

\\'riling i_ both relat.ional and respomi\c, a lwa)' in some wa) pan ongomg COn\"ersarion \\ith o ther.. Thi .. characteristic or \\riling

15 captured in ''hat is referred to as the clas ic rhrtonml trianglP, \\hich at each of its points a ke) element in the creation and interpreta-

uon of meaning: writer (speak<.>r. rhctor), audience (recei\cr, li tencr, reader), and text (message), a ll dynamicall) related in a panicular con-text. Walter Ong (1975) refencd to this history in his 1975 Writer\ Audience is a Fict"1on " · · 1 • · r • connectmg t 1c aucilcncc m oral p('rfor-mance hith readers of ,, ,.....;tt r · · . ,\', • en pcr1ormances and explonng the wa}:> m \\ h iCh the l\\o differ For 0 1 1· r · · · · ng, t 1e auc 1encc 101 a speech IS 1mmedratelv Present rightinfrontofthe 'k h'J · ' spea er, w 1 e readers are absent, removed. Thus the need he a rgues f, · • fi . . . . . • ·, or \\Titers to 1cuonalll'c the1r audiences and, 10 tum, for audiences to fictionalite thcmsehcs-that is, to adopt the role set out for them by the writer

Com t•pt I: Writmx Is <1 Sor t<!l & Rhf'loricJI Artivily 21

"rhohus in 1 hetoric and w1 iting '>ludics haw ext<·nded this under-st,uHiing of audien<.c, explaining writets can audiences--

'

. · a("lttal intended 1 eackrs 01 hstencrs--and mvoke, or call up, t l,ll IS, • • • , ...1 audiences as well. A-, I arn writing this brief piece, for example, IJn,tg-Int II . .

1 am imagining or invoking an audtence of students_ I . adell e"ing the acwal fir'>l readers of my wntmg, wh1ch m th1s as ,un ,.,

arc the of thi<; volume. . The digital age has brought with it the need for even closer consid-

eration ol audiences. We can no longer assume, for example, that the audience members for an oml presentation an· actually present. And, especially in a digital age. writing cannot on ly_ address invoke but 1 create audience :a'> a baseball announcer 111 the film hP/.d of Dreams

011 \\'. P. Kinsella's Shorlm joe) says, kif you build it, the} will W1 itcrs who e works have .. gone viral" on the web know well what

it means to create an audience that has been unintended and indeed unimagincd. Perhaps even more important, the advent digital online literacie has blurred the boundarie be"\'CCn \\Titer and audt-<·nce ignificantly: the point<; of the once-stable rhetorical triangle seem to be twirling and hifting and hading into one another. When con-

of information can, quite suddenly, become producers as well, then it\ hard to tell who is the writct, who the audience. In addition, the deeply collaborat.ive and social nawre of literacy in a digital age not

N inl > carlici but allows for greater agency on V part.J,f boW wntcrs and audtences.

uch hifting and expanding understandings of audience and of w<M writers interact with, address, invoke, become, and create audt-

new and important question about the ethics of ,'aJ"ious communicat.ive acts and call for pedagogics that engage tudents in exploring their own role as ethical and cffecri\e readers audience WJiters/ speakers listeners in the t\\('Ilt)-first centuf!.

1.3

WRITING EXPRESSES AND SHARES MEANING TO BE RECONSTRUCTED BY THE READER

Charles Bazerman

'TI1e concept that writing expresse and shares meaning is fundamen-tal to participating in writing- by writing "e can articulate and com-municalC a thought, desire, emotion, ob'>ervation , directi\"e, or tate of

to our elves and other-, through the medium of written words.

0 r m ::0 (/) () I 0 0 r 0 11

I 4 (

22 P4,RT I. TIIRt\HOlO <OS< fi'T'> 01 WRIT I (,

The.• pot<.' llli,tl of making .md ,Jt.u ing p1 m idt•, hoth tht· IIUIU\t

.Uld principle of om \\Ot kIll'' 1 iting .md lwJp, m ,h.tpc the cott-tcnt of our communicarimh \,, ... , t'll<.'" of thi' potl'nti.tl h t'at h in t'mcrgem litct.tn e:'<..perit'll<.t'\ .md rontinm•s tluoughout one's ,,,itin life but take, Oil diflerelll for< C ,\lld dq>th clS Oil(' ( through )if;

Tlw e\.pre,,ion of nwaning' in "titing m.tkcs them more ,·isible to the" ritt•r, nMk..tng the \nitt•t \ thought t lt',IJl'l' .md ,h,u cabk with oth·

. "ho can. attempt to maJ..c 'Cil\t' of tlw \\OI con,tt ucting a me.111•

mg the\ attnbute to the wtitcJ. \\ hilt• \\ ritns can confi11n that the \\til· H.'n feel consi..,tem \\i th tlwit '>t.ltc of mind, 1cadcr' can nr\rr read the wnter's mmd to confirm tht'\' fullv '>haH' that "'ue of mine!. Reade! hare onh the worm to "hich t•ach S<'(Ml cllt'lv mean-

Thu . mean in . do not t c'ide fully in the \\ord\ of the text nor in the unarticulated minm but only in the ch namic rd.tl.ion of \\nter, reader. and te:\.l.

While a writer' aJ i. c out of the t•xp• t'ssion of internal thoug_ht. the meanings attributed b) .1 readet arise from 1he ohjects, expenence, , and words a\<J.ilable to that reader. For readc1 , the of d1e text index or point to acce,sihlc idt•a , thought.'>, and experi· enc through which the: can reconstruct meaning ba .. ed on what they alread,· knm · ( e 3 3 · · I I r· . \ e · , nung s n ormccl by p, ior .. Aldwu?h meaning is philosophicall) compl<.ox, chi en r a.cl tt 1_n_ pracuce a: the) learn d1at dwy Call '>hare tlwir ex1 ·rie1 cs thr u, h wnung about t As th · · · . 1 · err \\nung the} can t•xpre s or articu at<' meamngs more full} and · 1 · · · · . precr e \ concernmg a \\ldcr t<J.nge of expcn· ence:., w1d1 \\ider audiences and wi th greater con equenccs.

The idea that · · wnung expre<;<,cs and hares meaning to be recon-tructed by the reader can be trouble orne bt•cause there i a temion

between the expre<;sio f · . . . n o meanmg and the hanng of 11. Often. ''e \lew our ex pre<> ions as deep! . 1 . . . . • Y , from mmost \\e rna\ not be sure o h ·11 .

• l er '" respond \\CII to our thoughts or \\111 evaluate w. and 0 . d r. • ur wor s ,a,orabl). Tht·reforc e\erv hared contains ri k a d . . k . . ' · . n can e\o c anxJcty. \\'nteJ., often hes1tare to hare what thev ha\e d d . • expresse an may e\en keep private texts thev

cons1der most meanincrf; 1 F 1 . . 6'u · urt 1er, wnter.. may resist the idea that the1r texts com;f>\.• to d . . -, rea ers somethmg different than what the writ· ers mrended Feedback f d . . d · rom rea ers mdJcating that the writer's

o not convey all the wr"t h d . ... r: 1 er ope IS not always welcomed (see 4.1. [) extl I adn" Object Out.-,ide of One'" Self that Can Be Imprmed and

e\e ope . 52 MMetac .. J C ' · ' ognnJOn h 'ot Cognition"· and 4 4 MRe\i,ion

to Developing Writing"). ' . ,

C on(l'pl T: Wntmg Is " Soo,,J & Rh1•toric a/ Activity 23

Awctrt•ncss that meaning is not tmnsparcntly available in written words may have the paradoxical eff<-ct of increasing our commitment to words •1s w<' mature as users of w• itten language. As writers we may work 011 the words with greater care and of the needs of readers so as to share our expressions of m<·aning a.o, best a<; we can with the lim-ited 1csourct•s of written language. As readers we may increase our attcn· tion 10 1 econstructing meaningo; despite the fragility of words. The vagaries of meaning also may become a resource for us as writers, whcthct we arc poets evoking readers' projections of personal ao;socia-tions or lawyers creal.ing loopholes and compromises.

1 .4 WORDS GET THEIR MEANINGS FROM OTHER WORDS

Dylan B. Dryer

This threshold concept is be t illustrated with an example of how a particular word is defined and understood. If cu ked on the spot to define the word cup, an English speaker might ay, "Well, it's a smallish drinking \esse!, something you'd use for hot drinks like coffee or tea, so probably ceramic rather than glass; usually it has a little handle so your hand doesn't too hot." Thi is a perfectlv serviceable definition, N phrased glosses r ight over this threshold con-

1at "-J cup is a mall ceramic drinking ve sel" cannot be literall} uue, after a ll; the object used to erve hot drinks is not called into being by this sound, nor b there any reason for the phoneme symbolized by the three characters r, u and p to refer to this object (or to refer to it in Engli h, at any rdte; in German that object i referred to a diP 'fasse; in Mandarin as Chriutin; and 'IO on.) E\en English peakers don't ah'<J.}S use that ound to mean a malli h ceramic drinking ve el. ln the kitchen, cup is probably a unit of measure; in certain porting circle . cup is the diminutive for the champion hip trophy (e.g .. the

tanlcy Cup). Cup can e,·en mean to hold omething gingerly by not closing one's fingers about it, as one would cup an egg helL

Cup does not ha\e an especialh elaborate range of mea11ing (comidcr word like go or work or right), but it adcquateh illu trate Ferdinand de au ·sure's great insight: "In language itself, there are onl} differences" (Sa us ure 1983, 118) . aussurc meant that bccau e there is no necessary connection between any sound or clu ters of symbols and their referents (other·wise different language would not exi. t), the meanings of words are relational-the\ acquire their

)> 0 r m ::0 en () I 0 0 r 0 ,

(

(

.!4 Po\RT I THRl\11010 01 \\RITIN(,

from o ther \\Ot<h. \m defini tion H'lit•, o n ,, o rcJ... to npl.un othe1 '' 01 d' nwan. mm t'OH'I, '' o 1< J.., in .1 't'lllc.•nn· or p.11 a graph

mfltH: nn.• and oftt.·n dete1milw each o tht•l \ nH·aning (''hi< h h "h' childrt>n .u: often .,d, i't'd to p unk o u t .Ill unf.tmili,u , ·01 abular;

trom ll\ conte'\.t) Sl.mg tc.•t m' lot good and bnd aH' p<uti< ul.ul) \ntd e'\..lmple' of the " ·"' con tt':\.l <I t i\ C'- th1..,1 tt•nm ch.mgc.• mc.·1 n ight, tlw ir uwaning' .ue U\ualh nllli· ou' bt"Cilll\1.' of the COntt.':Xl of t•n th mi.tsm or di..,p;u .tgenw nt in \\ hirh the) 'n• ulle1ed.

While the realization t h .H wm d-. <. an not h<.· p t' l lll.\llenLiv linktd to '>peufic can be.· disronceru ng. the dkch of thn·,hnlrl

are familiar. of m, for <.·xam plt·. h.tw• had the unp11 ,1 •

ant ft•ehng that o;omeone t'J,e h.ls twi-.ted o u r \\OI d., ot tak<'n them out of context: we might h;ne bristled at an <'X<'t•,,iwh technical loophole omeone find in a eemingl) c,ensible ,ll\d ob' iouc, 1ule: \H' might

ha'e been 'tanled b) an mtei'Jlretation of a familiar pot•rn or a text \\C

hold 'acred and Land 2006 . .3). I best.' t•xpedencc.s a re remind· en. that relation that imbue .t entt•ncc \dth pa1tkular nwanmgs come not Jll t from near b) wo1 ds but al'io from the contc:x{;) in which the entence is u ed. For <''ampl<·, not onh docs each Mml in the four-\\Ord que tion for the cu p?" with the other three to make the uuerance under tandablc, htll '>ocial context ma_ke this tion mean one thing in a kitc h<·n a{ d a•B wr l ing \\h tle changmg the channel a t a har. a\S Bakh · "I' n ' un, Je on the borderlirw between one elf and the other. The word in language is half.omeone ebe\" (Bakh tin 1981, 293).

phenomenon ''orks the other \\a). too: if meanings of \\ord' hlft 10 re pone to change" in '>ocial context\, it's also possible to inft•r

change in ocial contexts from chang<'' in th(' meanings of worcb. In e'er; day usage, text is now almo'>t cxclusi\eh a \Crb a the ubiquin of cell phone has changed > • : • < ur commumcauon changt·s 111 our thinking about g d . . ' . . en er repre'><·nt.auon hau· \trtually chmmated the \.\ord mankind from bl' . d' . pu tc rscour.,e· f(fttn ha., acquired a complex et of in pol' · 1 • ltlCa , econom1c, and ('ngmeering contexL'>, and

!>O on. And writers often . . . . . . . g1\e semannc dnft deltberal(· sho,es o f theu own, e1ther b '-' workin t h ' g o c ange what a word is percehed to mean (for example "queer") b 1 . . ' or Y P anng fam iliar word s in new contexts 10 prO\oke a new persp t' .. 1. . , . . B dk . · ec 1\e, or example, (,Jona Antald ua and Ltnda

ro cy have hken d . · · .. .. . h' , c wntmg to compustura" (Lunsfotd 1998 9) and su tc mg (1994 545 7) . '

d "ff ' - • respecu,ely-scaming together something ' <·rent from existing material.

Concc•pt I : Wntmg Is ,1 & RhNorKJI Actiwty 25

lhnt' are three 1mportant implic-ations of understanding this th rt'sholcl conc<'pt. First, wh ·n writers understand that meanings are not cktermined hy history or Wrb\IPr'\ prescriptions alonC', but also by language ttScr'>' contexL'i and motivc•o;, they gain a powerful insight into the of communicative •;ucct·ss and failure. When readers and writers c;ha1 e a workplace, a dose relatiomhip, a broad set of assump-tions, 0 , the same ftcld of sLUdy, they can rdy on these social contexts to fi ll in the blanks with shated under'>tanding (specialists convers-ing in technical jargon or speak_ing in p rivate r01 example). But when readers and wntcrs don t share close, mtense contexts like these, they can have surprising reactions to even seem-ingly sclf-e"idcnt words like Justlrt', rPvarrh,frrl'liom, rssay, o: evidmce. To work with another c;imple example, Saus'lure used a drawmg to repre-sent the concept of tree evoked by the Latin word arbor and the equally m bitrary English tm•. uppose then that we surround the word tree\\<ith two difiercnt clusters of words, some drawn from communities reliant on the timber industry (lil'iTZg wagf, Weal fCOIIOmJ, tradition, and ski[[) and others drawn from communities reliant on tourism (nature, habi-tat, prr.sml(llion. and rerrPalion). It's not at all far from the truth to say we are of two different trees. Even if we can agree in very broad particulars what jtulice means, our personal 'tense of what it means, the contexts in which we might use it, and the examples \.,·e might use to

N ilhte it \I ll sc om_ map onto readers' equally complex pt i\ate c>f- conr otauons tor th1s word.

'econd , since we must often communicate with tho e outside of our close social context.s, this threshold concept also help us ee how we can reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings. Certainly studt·nts arc often exhorted to define their terms. but thi concept helps explain why particular meaning for ke) terms in their writ-ing can require careful framing. Pan of this under tanding invohes a sen e of wlwn readers might need their expectation for certain words managed and/ or redirected. These mO\eS will not guarantee perfect understanding, but the) can help increase the chances that readers will produce the particular meaning the wdter intended. InsLructol , too, should remember that common assignment Yerb like analyu, intnprf'l, Pxplazn, and respond have disciplinc-!>pccific context.s.

Finally, and most excitinglv, writers who understand that the defini-tions of any word dcYclop fro m its usage realite that they, too, are pan of this everv instance of thcit language use works to pre en·e certain meanings and to advance others.

(f) 0 I 0 0 r 0 ,

r (.

(

.!6 P Rl I. 1 H R l \ H 0 t D CO < f f'l \ ()I \\ R II II'< (,

1.5

WRITI 'G 1EDIATE ACTIVITY

Da\ 1d R. Russell

j.., ,\ ,, tool ('ct• Ul. "\\"Iiting Is ,1 1hhnolog\ th10ugh \\lm h \\met'\ Create .md Rt•u nte It · · • • ' ,.., · t , 111 a Ht.l tt-... n.u "'C'nse. nothing mon.• than makmg m.u k.., on surfac t•s. wlwtht•J of

'>tone. liquid<n,tal "1 eens. 01 ,, rhi ld\ h.md (llw girl n·minrl-mg ht' l dl to feed her dog \H' mrt in J .0. "\\'1 iting h a Soci.tl .mel

:rhe .mat ks may 1 t' J>I t•.,ent the sounds of .,pecch (a., m .llphabeuc hke Engh h) 01 idt•a (.ts in idcogr,tphic script' lilt•

t•) or (a.s in pictogr.tphic script' likt• Cuneiform). But m 1.1 and 1.3 h .t Krw,,Jcdgt•-Making c:thit\"

and \\ nung Ex pre e and h;u e' ;\kaning to he Rc((>nSintc.ted b\ the Reader-), the do not M • • M • i · ' . contam 1c 01 or cH·n mean-mg People make ometl1ing of them. 1 he\ must read l11cm and inter-pret them to act on them or tl1in!. "ith tht•m.

Thi pre ence of ·· · I ' · . . \\11Ung mec l.lles---com<''> hetween, mter-\Cne acthity of people (Rw . .,cll 1993: Rus ell 199i). Tht· v.hite

I 0 P on a red hexagonal '>In face nwdiate the acti\it) of the dmers who arrive at tl1e · · . . mtcr ccoon at about the ame ume. (Tho:.e \\ntten at o help m d ' 1 · · . . e Jate L JC acunty of a '>coff · w d 'f·er "itf the pohce and the courts.) L L

Writing occupies an intern1ed ' . · ld - · · . . late 01 m1c lc po JtJOn to form a con· necung lmk that people us. • d' . . . . c .. o coor mate thear actl\il) Sometime thi, 15 Ob\10U like tl1e stop s· 1 1 . . · 1gn or aw'> 01 L H' of a club 01 a nauon. Sometimes writing m d'· . . . . e actl\lt) that! conflictual. like court proceedmgs-or even mass· I .. I l'k . 1\C > \10 ent, a e war.., fought 0\er interpreta· uon of holv cripture · · . (1'1· • • omeume ll med1att· the human bond'

Jt .. e the father writing a b"rthd· . 1 . 1 •.• Rh

. 1 ay care 111 .0. \'\ nung Is .t onal and etoncal Acti"it) Although other forms of · · . . . . commullJcauon (hk(• speaking) also medi-

ate actl\.ltv wnting h raJ h · • as se\e advantage'> (and disad\".Ultages) 0\Cr

L ose forms. Oependin h . . g on t e surfac<.• and the writing instrument u ed, wnung la\ts long h .. . . " er t an speech (unless a recording de\ icc \\ntes the sound waves) M .

d d. . · · • ore amportantly, l11e mark.'i can be copied an astnhuted over great d' .

h J'itances, unhkc (unrecorded) speech and o t er S)mbols Th . · · us, \\ntmg can cooa dinate the acti\ity of faa

more people O\'er much I . Com d cmger penods of Lime. Fo1 example the Ten

man ments, first wriuen . . . . ' .. h on stone, ha\c shaped human actmty for

t ree thousand years now.

Cone t•pt I: WrtltnH Is i.l Soc iJI & Rh('(ortcal Activity 27

People can also n·tu1n to writing over and over, revise it and shape it

1clativcly easily (though more e<Lsily with a woad processor than a quill pen 01 chisel!). ln this way writing is very ·fu l for mediation of cog-nitive proct'sses-thinking. Writmg can mediate the internal activity of thought and emotion as well as rxll'rnal behavior. Internal thoughts and feeli ngs can be externali1ed relatively quickly in writing, manipulated and revised rather easily (individually or with other people), then rein-tcrnali7cd, m stored for later comparison. People can compare earlier states of mi nd to later states and act accordingly (like the young man with his jomnal in 1.0, or scientisLc; in a lab examining successive print-ouLs from an instrument) . In this way, the mediation of writing has been central to the development of knowledge, in science and the arts, and to education, as people write to learn as well a'i learn to write.

lhe concept that writing mediates human activity is troublesome bccatl'e it goes against the usual roncepts of writing as "just" tran-cribing ("writing down" or thought or speech (see 1.6,

"Writing Is i\ot Natural"). But it i a concept people unconsciously use even: time the} choose a medium of communication hecatiSe of its prop-t>rtics (a text rather than a phone (·all, for example)--<>r forget tho e properties (\\hen an affair is discovered by means of work emails that tht> lo\'ers thought \\ere "just" their inrimate conver ation). More impor-tan©l ·, it is a concept that lies behind the durable, and seemingly per-N ma en stnl tur«:'of human .whose activ wout!be Mposs1ble \\1thoutthe medn1m ofwntmg. The mstJtu-tions that form our modern lives-government, commerce, indtiStry, the art.s, ciences, and o on-are mediated by written marks in databases,

regulations, books, the Internet.

1.6

WRITI G IS NOT NATU RAL

Dylan B. Dryer

Engli'!h speakers routinely taU .. about writing as if it were peech, char-actetlling their inability to understand a text ac; difficulry understanding whatthat text is "saying," peaking of a writer's '·voice·· or desc1iiJ.. ing readers as an "audience," and so forth. This habit conceal an essential difference: speech is natural in the sense that as modem homo sapien . we\e been peaking to one another for nearh two hundred thousand years. Our speech has been bound up in complex feedback loop with our physiology (e\idence suggesls that our larynxes adapted during these

)> 0 r m ::u (/) () J: 0 0 r 0 ,

( I' ( (

.28 PI\RT I: THRh'lOl 0 II'T' Of \\'RiliN(,

milknni.t. I..,'Tadu.tllv .Kquiring an n:u 101 din 11, t'XJ>t • • ) _ • • • ' • t '"" e and

our c ogtutwn (note hm\ qmrk.h .111<1 t•a,ilv tlmm1 til rh 'I 1 . • • • ' c r t•n acqu1re 'I' t' llut·n_n Ill tlwir tMth t.• I and h<m and st·cnl-

mg-h lll\Oiunt.lllh .tdull.\ p.utidp.ttt• in dtildr <'n \ ('{T01 1 1 1 _ . ) • · . ., .t

.tcquNtton . It pomt exn'l>tion tlh cliflic tilt I<> 1 • 1 • ' (,lM' 1Uill:tll tr.mon and l.mgu.tge ·•J>au ( '<'C B111 ke J <}()6) 1,111 · 1• • • 1 , '- ' • > I \ C\-.,('1111,1 (O her that" lule mam older childt t'n .tnd ,rcluhs aho 1 outin<"h write th"' 1 '0 h\ 0 h' . • ' " ( (j c m .uTa\ of.,, fm tho'><' ,ounch.

I'he ... e 'nnbol c lll do 11 1 } · · · ' ' .tm 1 tmg .... t ll'l c:olktt1on tllmtrdlrs but the' cannot 'Pe"cl . 1 1 · • . • '

• '" l or t 10ug 1l 111 tht•IJ ongmal form': they '-peech and thought into in\cr iptiono.,, Otlwr:-. (if the knov; tht'

code mu't ilien tn· 10 e - · • 1 . . . . • ' actl\ate t le'>e IIllo meaning. \\'titing 1' nt'n men table: after all, not all language-, haH' \\ ritinu, and no

panrcular ' te f' 'b' n . . . m o mscn mg '' rnbol' (alph.u1umet ic, ideographic. i· abjadJC etc · . b · · · ' an o \lOUS complcnwnt to an fMrticular fami"

of \nd e . 1 . '1 · • \en more to t H.' ponu, \\C haH'n 't bcc•n doing it aU iliat long: ell> far as anmne II • . . . . can te . S\,tt.'nh didn't tart crop-Pin"' up here and there umil about 3000 BCE, ,;nd onh a fc\\ members of ilia e culture \\Ottld haH: , 1 1 • . -. u t c t 1me ' I h(' centuf') or o in \\htch orne culLUre ha\c u. d . . . . . a empte to teach lll'<Ttpuw "' tem-. at a nearh unl\ersal ,cale ·5 d fi · 1 -

. . · 1 e mue} not long enough to be able to idendi\ peCific elecu' e effect)) ili · 1 1 • tee lno has had on om· cogniti\'e an:hi-

or overall ph\,iolog). I L I \\ ord. like -1. l . r ons,.S)uwo .!,codP,anciarrn) arcin ndt er ·

ue the tcrhnological dime · f · . \ , nston o \\lJllng, firM S} tcmaticallv c·xplorC'd b \aher Ong 0\er iliim· ,ea \\'h'l · ·

• • • rs ago. t c \\e mually the \\Ord l«h-no..,-;.;_, for recent mno\'ation I I . . s. am cu twa arufaet that m<"diate acti\il\ t a technology includin th 11 1 . . · g o .. e tat 1a\c become imi'iible throu"'h long w e. roof-.. coat)) hamme 1 • 1• 1 • 0

\\1 .1 • rs, e ectnc rg Hmg, cooking pot! and '0 forth u e orne l\pi'>ts no lo d , . . d nger nee to peck at their QWERTI' ke\ boarch,

an mo t chddren gradual} "d . " ili _ ) top r.t\\lng letter .. and "writing" em as ilie S)mbol for cena· d

h. . m oun become irllc·riorited the e \\Tit· ers a\e naturaliZed ilieir I· . h ' . ' tak h . re auons 1P \\tth technological arra}'· 1101 en t e next or orga . . tic K bo ntc step m language acquic,ition and prac·

c. ey ards and other tool f · · · s o tn'iCJ •puon-pcns pencils chalk dn· er.t e marker software for ' , ' . cio • h ' and ccllphone<;-fadc from con-( .• t rough use, and it become<, hard to remember that even a tco.. use to <>cratch l.rO-V-Ein • . .

tionali1ed n 1.... 1 r- J the or;and rs a t<·chnology of com en· s JOr sounds How... .· I . . . . . . . . · C\Cr, I1Clllcr \\nttng produced with

o· a wnung. m other . d . . can be said to b .. .. . wor \\rtttcn language rtsclf e natural m the W'.t) that pcech i'>.

Concc·pt I : Wntmg Is J SoriJI & Rhc·toricaf Activity 29

While cm11ncrintuitin·, dcnaturaliting writing not diflicult: the star-tling experience of attempting to 'iign a document with one's nondomi-rwll hand, for example, can I)(' a dbcorHerting reminder of the time before muscle memory and cognitive routine habituated us to certain

slltlpl''>. Pairing a familiar translation with its original-language 0 1 an hour pent learning to read '>hot t text'> in a simple code

like Wingdings font can expose the arbitrariness of symbol-phoneme relationships. But why do this at all, <;specially since habituated fluency with these symlxlls and their technologies of ins< ription are generally considered important indexes of our matw ity as writers?

It's usdul to tcmembcr mat writing i'> not natural because writers tend to judge their \\Tiling proce<,scs too harshl}--comparing them to the ease

which they usually speak. ho, ... evcr, employs an extensive arr.:lY of modalitic unavailable to \\nling: gc.,turc, expression, pacing, reg-

and clarifications--all of which are instantaneously re pon-iw to listener.. ' \erbal and nonverbal feedback. Once it is understood

that \\riLing a technology, comparisons to speech become obviously limitc:d or cicmnright misleading since no inscriptive could possibly capture a l.mguage's full range of cornmunicath:c potential.

Write! can also benefit from the realization that they needn 't blame them,ehe for ilie of the system they've inherited. The limitations of this } tern--confounding illogicalitie in pronunciation

N andiJRiling trhoo<!'ut wood and would; rlout but doubt); exasperat-what constitut<''> an .. en or" and for whom; ilie per-

sistent gulf bct\\een writer-.' intcmions and 1 eader..' interpretations-are simp!} inherent to a piecemeal technology encumbered , ... ;m centurie of patchwork olutions to antiquated This is not to iliat the e limiutions arc unimportant or ignorable. It is to o;ay, howe\'er, that all \\Titer> are negotiating workarouncb to the limitation of a technoiOg) th<')' ha\e inherited rather than bungling an ob"ious complement to ilie speech in which the\ ha\e been natural!) adept since childhood.

1.7

ASSESSING WRITING SHAP ES CONTEXTS AND INSTRUCTION

Tony Scott and Asao B. Inoue

In chool euings, writing a sessm<.'nt 1 cfer to the fomntlation of a judgment or deci ion ba'>ed on the reading of student writing wiili a particular set of expectation-. or Yalue'> in mind. r\s e' ment thu encompaN.' · a range of activitie , from responding \\olth re\'ision in

}> 0 r m ::u (/) C) I 0 0 r 0 ,

( r ( (

lO P-\RT 1: THRESIIOtD (01\: CIPI\ 01 \\RiliN(,

min.d to culu.uion or gt.tding of lin.ll pwclun-. to l.u ge·s( ale pw gnllu· m.tlll ·'' 't.' ''tnt.'n ts.

\\ nung ·''' l'""menh .u e a \O< i.tl ani' it' .md c.ut he ... h.tpcd hv ,1 \adt•t of individu.tl or institutiOnal f:tnot,, including st.ttcd go.tls f<,>r ,11 itin educ.uion: disCiplinan philo.,ophit.'' of litt•t,\C\' and k .u ning; ag-enda . cflicicnn imperatiH•s: or ('ommon cultural ·'''lllllptio11\ aboul writt•t· .md litetan. BeGuN:> the judgments in a'>ses.,mcnts art' infonned b' factot . liJ...e the-.e. a''-l' ''nwnt is not nt·uu,tl: it th<· ·ocial and rhetorical come--.ls "ht'H' '" iting takt•s plan>, c'>pt•riall\ in ::.chool. Am assessment 01 t'\aluation applit·o, '>pecilic Yalues and al 0 encourage"" liteN to adopt those \'ahte'i. I low teachct or others aN'" tudent writing. what producL., tho\t' a"'<'s.,mt•nt procc.,scs produce

(e.g .. grades. commenLs on papet , dt'( bions about student\, to peers' drafts. etc.) . and the con-.cqta·nn· of tho'c p10ducts all can'"' atelhe \en competencie writing a,w,.,ment it (Gould 19 1: Hamon 1993).

In _other \\Ord ' \\hate\er I in clll cl'i'>C'- lllClll produ<es defined a-; "good writing" m a cl.t s. a progt .nn. or a run iculum.

Likew1 e. what i not emphao;i1ed becom<.' <, lc s important and ma' not be characteri tic of good \niting. FOJ t•:-.:ampk•, a acO\lt) Lhat asks tudents to identify and comment on the critical think-ing in peers· drafts emJ;hasiTeo; o itical thinking as a part of what 1 d · · B . 1 : . . wnong. ) aslU.ng students to look for at <''<fuate cJ tical I Lhmkmg m drafts, teachers ignal that Llwv v-alue n · ical encourage tudems to value it, po.,sihlv e than other onl' might find in drafts. ·

assessment constnacts boundatie f()J learning and studrnt agency I · · . m eammg ennronments and frames how tudents understand writing and their own abilitie . It can thet cfore affect curricula tu· dents' o;en e f th · I · · . . 0 ear egmmaq and chances of succe-;s, and a teacher\ JOb intellectual and creati\e agenq. and merit

Fmally. as es mem shapes relation hips and power ben\een teach· ers. students, and institutions. Depending on the institutional setting.

and students h . . a\e val)1ng degrees of agency to detennine the character of their work and t h . 1 . • . • eac ers anc students negouate thetr rela-U\e autholity in part Lh h Lh ' • roug c ways stucl<-nts' writing is evaluated and the consequences · 1 · assoCJatec Wtth tho'e eV".aluations. Institutions

use assc smenLs to inform teachers and students while lending t em agency, or Lhey can align pre<,cribed curricula with assessment outcomes to determine the f, f . ocus o teachmg and circumsclibe thr cope of tudents' writing " ' · · · nntmg asse'isment can thereby function as

( onc.(•pt I : Wflting Is .1 5o< lcJI & Rhl'tortca/ Activity 31

an intentional nl<'anc., of controlling the labor and creative latitude of tcachc•:. .tnd swdenL'>.

The <LW'ssrnt·nt of writing shapes contexL'i and learning environ-ments: 11 is a set of p• enac.tccl by pcopl<' in specific circumstances r01 specific purposes that have cons<·quenc<·s for hoth the people whose writing is bcingjudged and for those who arc judging.

t.8 WR ITI NG INVOLVES MAKI NG ETH I CAL C H O I CES

john Duffy

We tend to think of writing as an activity that involves communi-cating information , or making an argument, or expressing a creative impube, e"ven when we imagine it as something that creates meaning h<'lwern writers and readers (see 1.2, "Writing Addresse . Invokes, and/ or Creates Audiences") . Writing is indeed all those things. But writing is

... equallv an acti\il) that involves ethical choices that arise from the rela-tionship of,\ritcr and reader.

Writing imolves ethical choices because every time we write for another person, we propor;e a relationship with other human beings, our reader . And in proposing such relationships we inevitably

and deliberately, or implicitly and uninten-tionli!Y)he that moral philosophers regard as ethical: What kmd of person do I want w be? How should 1 treat others? How hould !lin.' my life? (Shafer-Landau 2007) . For writer . these que tions rna) be rephrased: What kind of writer do I wish to be? \\'hat are my obli-gations to my readers? What effects will my words have upon others, upon fommunity?

To that writing invohes ethical is not to ugge t that indi-'idual writers should be judged as ethical or unethical in the sense of being moral, upright, honest, and o forth . !\or it i to sa} that \\Titers

reflect on ethical concerns as the\ write. The' may or rna\ not Neither it to assert, final!\, that e\ery text can be regarded as ethiral or unethical based on iL'> content. Man\ texts, perhaps mo t, are devoid Of the matter typicaiJ'r c\SSOCiated with ethics.

Rathel, lO Sa}' writing involve ... ethical choices is tO Sa\' that when cre-ating a text, the writer addresses other'\. And that, in tunl, initiates a relationship between writer and reader-. , one that nece · arily invoh es human \'alues and \irtues. \writer auempting to communicate an idea or persuade an audience, for e--..unple, nlc\y \\rite in \\a\ · that pli\ilege

K

}> 0 r m :u (J) 0 I 0 0 r 0 ,

(

( r ( (

32 PART I . THR£'>1i0lD COS< tPTS 01 V\RIIINC, Cone r•pt I: Wf/ttng Is ,, Soci.J/ & Rh(•/oriral Actwity n

hont',t\, .trCU14lC\, fairnt'''· .md .HTIHlnt,thilit\, '( ht''t' <Jtt.tlitit•, impl an . (l'kc c·ornmcr<·<·) and in the organitation of writ-pa.KUCC'> I ' . • nutude to\\,trd the "I lll'l \ ll'.tdc•r ': in thi' c.t,<', altitude, of . . If h \S the cmcrg<·nc<· of the book, hclp<·cl create new socral mg 1tw , sue • . . . fulne''· open-mindedne". ill. pt•r h,,,,.. humilit\. Comt·r t•h, an . 1 . \iVhcther we arc talkrng about wave<,, phys1cal mark.<; rrlauons Hps.

inf'orm.ttlon.tl or pel'tU,\'IH' text th.u j, \Ill< k.u. in.1u 111 ,\tl'. or cl<'libcr· . • pixch rende1 eel on tiH' o;n <·en of a computer, tablet, or on a JMgc. ot . . .\tt'h dneptne a dlfTl'ICnt atti tud<· tcl\\,ud H',td<·r,: one that j at .. 1 1

g 111akes material some versron of the thoughts and 1deas phone, w1t 11 • . • ., bt•,t r..uek '· ,\1 \\Of't contt•mptuous. (A tiCN' c.'\amination of ,,hat arc f. np<>'Cr (sec 1 1 KWriting h a Knowledg<·-Makmg ActiVIty). 0 COl ·> · ' ' •

<Ommonh refencd to a,, fo,...;ral 'alltu·i11 \\ill ... hm\ that thl''e aH· betttr 1. e rc>r <;uch writing must similarly devote matenal resources /'o' ' ' The au< rene •' .

unde1 tood a ... ethic.tl di..,po,ition' r.uht·r than ,t\l,lfN's oflogic.) \\'ritl'l'\ to it, even if simply in the form of .attenu .. on (see of fiction or poetry. to take a diflt'll'nt kind of t•xample, rna} waitt· in "Writing Addrcssc.,, Invokes, and/or Creates AudJCnces ). Meamng \\a\ that prhilege othe1 'uch .ts pla}ful n<·o,s, opac itv. or original· cloesn'lju'>t happen. it\ The • too. peak ro the writt·r \ coJl<'t'ption of the Ie.telcr and thm.. The tools we u.,e to produce writing (pens, keyboards) and those f01e to the ethtcal con-,ideJ-..uiom th.ll f(>llm\ \\IH"n <'ntCI ing a relation- media where wliting take place (pages, books, screens) are all a part -.hip with another hum.m being. of what\\(' mean when we describ · writing as a technology. Tools and

The undero;tanding of wri ting .b an au of ethical dcci<;ion making nwdia shape what we arc able to write and the ideas we can_ un t•ttles conceptions of\\riting as sold) in\tnllnenr.tl, polt•mical, or aes- and the\ condition the expectations of those who read our \VTIUng. \\e thetic. Be\ond the e. i also and pcrhap ultirnatt•l} understood might cle\nibe thc<;e qualitie a'> the afTordances of pa.rticular. techn.olo-as an acti\il) that engage m wi th otlwr and thw, \\ith prohkrn asso- gie (and environments). tho c features that penmt certam action ciated ,,;th the moraJ life: \\l1at hall I'm? 'Jo \\hom do I o;peak? \\ltat • (while perhaps limiting others). Writing an c sa} on a compute_r, for obligations follow from ffi) words? What are the ccm-.<·qtwnce ? Whether example, afford certain actions, uch as the quick or or not the writer \'Oice such que'>tiom, the\ art• inhcn•nt in the act of tion of text from words to entences to paragraphs . .Medm carry differ-communicating \\ith another ( ee 1.3, Expre ses and cnt aflorciances. We think little of seeing ha'ihtags in a T'"ittcr feed, for Meaning to be Recon rructcd by the Rt•adcr"). T fany f{' us .would. find. it quite to read a novel

we :.ee \Hiring th is way, as an acth:it) imohi(lg et ical cl oic<· I l Likewise, the abll rty to cltck on a hashtag an mg from the human relatiomhip of \niter and rbde , ,e c a in a tweet (and to sec all the post'i tagged thusl}) is not an affordance threshold that both expando; and complicates our under tanding' of of the printed page. ''hat it means to write. With the emergence and diffusion of digital technologies, however.

l.9

WRITI G IS A TECHNOLOGY THROUGH WH ICH WRITERS CREATE A"'D RECREATE MEAN I NG

Collin Brooke and Jeffrey T. Grabill

I. A. Richards once ob-.cned, MA book j., a machine to think with• (Richards 2001). While we may think about text'> differently than we do our or kitchen appliances, theH• is 'IOmcthing sugge,tiH'

Richards s compari-.on that is \\Orth pursuing. WI-iting is a tech· nolog), and thinking of it in thi fashion can be producthe for both stu· dents and of writing.

. Writing h<b alw'a} been a technology for thinking and communicat· mg .Ea I · · · · r} lllM:nptwn technologi<'s enabkd the ()rganization of -;ocial

the impact of technology on the making of meaning never been more ,i.,ihle '>Ociallv and cultural h . The power of networks can perhap be mo'it ecu.;lv in of connecti\ity: the ability to con-nen reader.., \niter . to tunl one \\ith a nel\\Ork connection into a Connectivity allO\\!> \Hiters to acce and participate more

and quickly with others and to distribute writing to large.and \\idely di-.per ed writing have the wriung proces.,, but the compmcr net\\Olk has had a dramatic social impact. ( .onsider, for example, platfoml'> hkc face book and mkiprdia, arguabl) two of the mo t significalU collaborative writing projects in human hrstol). The aflordances of JXHticular \\Titing technologic par-ticipate in the construction of ne\\ and changing rhetorical contexts.

Writer-. may prefer different woh .md/ or em ironments depending on their aflordante\, yet it has become mme difficult to separate the

of writing from the toob we me to produce it. This i becatl!>e

}'> 0 r m ;o (J) 0 I 0 0 r 0 ,

14 Pa.RT 1 THRL I PTs 01 \\ Rl T 1 (,

\\liting .• h 11 ,\1\\,l\'> h.ts bet•n, I'>.\ tt't'hnoloh'Y for thinking, and it ma be tht• c.t, t• th.n \\ e int ·riolr.t• the of \II iting it,t·lf to \hape the po ' lblhllt'' tm

Referentt:'S \n,,m, l hn' '"Thl' hHrddN•phman lnfhwm t ' nf Compmtt1nn lind \\\(, t '167-

19)o,t)." \\ \ Cjauma/21 : :l-19. 1\.llhtin. \1. \I. 19 1. '\mt·l · tn J'hrf)w(ORfr Jmagt11,1tum, .. rlm d h)

\1lthad Holqm'l. h1 ( . ar.l l nlt't on and \ llth,td llo lcl'li,l ., 2>!1--122 ni\l·r-it' of Te:-.;a' Pn·''·

Banon, D.nid, and Hannlton. )II<),. l,ocall.llmuu• Rratfmg nnd l\ ntmg 111 C.o unll). London: hup:/ 117 1120144 ,

Brodl..t'\, Lmda. 1994. ·wnnng on tlw Bi.,, • Culkgt• lngh'h 5h (!i): !\2i-47. Burl..t", Kenneth. 1966. ·nefimunn Ill \ t an." In /..anguaf!l' a.• \\mholu Adwn l'J"'Z)l on l ift,

l.llmrllll'l'. and lt'thod. ed. Kenneth Uurl..t•, !'.--21. H< rkclc\ . t 111\"Crsll of C:ahfom•a Prt '

flo"-er, Unda, and john Ha\t"' 191'0. <..ogmtion of llrscoH' r. Odmmg a RhetoriGII p., Composuron nnd Commununtron 31 (1 ):

Got I i phenj. 19 I. 'f1lto \1u W4!urr of .... York\\'. \\'. :'\orton r \Han 1993. 'ional r.otiM1Jumm ojw ExammM

L f.JI< r<rl"\ o£ California · h rle\ _nOnts at \\Or* and l'itr) 11rm" [)tTadf:, w 1-amih and CommumiJ

I c..mbndge: IJnl\eNl\ l'•t" lun,furd -\ndrea \ 1993 "1 - d 't · Rh · • · · · · m•a• a ,, c:'u'a <'Inn<: (,Jona n1aloua nu C.:<rOlJ>OSIUon

and Po,tcolunialit\." Ji C: Ajounwl ofC.omf>alllw" 11wory 18 ( 1 ). 1-27 Jan H F and Land ')tVUo MTJ 1 Jd •

• '· · •• • • -"""· lite\ 10 (..:)IHt·pt' ancl Jiuhkt w An lnlroduction." ln Ot!I'Tromi11X to \tudml munt mimi[,

b1jan H . F. Me1er and Ra1 Land , 3-IH. London· Routkd •t• L Ong 19·5 "Th \\" · d . • • 1 · e nter l<'nce is \1\1:11 a hnwn • P\1/.A 90 ( I ) : 9-2 1. Richarc:b, Prinnpks of l.1tnnry CniiCilm. 2nd <'cl . London: Routledgt•

0;1\ld R. 199" •A · · 1 .... • :>. • CU\ll) Jrt."'r\ and IL\ Impllc ation> lm \\'1rting • In lVconannnf! 1\'rilrnJ:'. Rnhrnkinsr 1\ntmt: lrHtntctum, c-cln<'d b Jo,eph P<'uagha, 51-77.

tah\\ah , :-;): Erlbaum. Rlmdl, Da1id R. 1997 "Retl · • : r •_ . Anal . • • • un ... ng '-"''nrt' m S<hool and \n Acthtt\ Thcol)

14 (-4 ): 504-) 1. hup://dx.duJ.org 10 lli7/ 074 108

S.uwChu.rc, Ferdinand de. 19X3. C.mtrym (.-m,-all.mguutrrj. Iran latl.'d b) Ro) Ilarri rcago Opt'n \..oun..

Russ d 200- • J • • e · '· r;t A11 \ta)(J<•n: Hl.<cl..well.

I JF--..:.l

CONCEPT 2 Writing Speaks to Situations through Recognizable Forms

2. 0 WR ITING SPEAKS TO SITUATIONS THRO UG H REC OGNI ZABLE FORMS

Charles Bazerman

A fundamental problem in communication precedes the choosing of anv 1\0rd\ or of any me sage: the situation we are in and the nature of the communication we wish to make. Are sale people offering a deal and do we wam tO accept? Are our acquaintance amusing each other v"ith jokes and are we amu::.ed? Arc our trusted ad vi-SOl) us to reconsider ou1 behaviors and do we re ist? The situa-tion frames our understanding of the communicative action of others and gives us the urgency and moti\e to respond because somehow we Ncn ou wor s wit J\atisfy our needs in the situation or otherwise make the ation ueH or us. In face-to-face life, th is problem is olved through our recognizing the geographic locale we are in, the people we are talking to, our relationship to them, the e\ents unfolding before us, and our impulses to do something. Through long practical experi-ence we learn to recognize pontaneously what appears to be going on around us and how it affects us. Our impulses to act communicatively emerge as doable actions in the situation, in forms recognizable to

accept the offer, we laugh at the joke, we agree to change. Con cious thought is \\<arramed onh if we ha\e reason to believe things are they appear to be, if confu ion arise withi n the ituation, or if "'e wamto suppre , our first impulse .mel pursue ale s obvious trategic path- laughing to appear congenial though we find the joke o£Ien ive.

Writing, as well, addresses -;ocial <;ituation and aud iences organized in social groups and does so through recognizable forms associated ,.,.;th those and ocial group . But with writing ,,·e have fewer here-and-now clues about what the siw.uion is, who our audience are, and how we want to reo; pond. Written me· ages can circulate from one mate-rial and social situation to another, ,m el in fact a re u ·ually intended to.

DOl IO