Blog for 3/31/08 Eng 701
Ong describes literacy as an expected norm of human expression and thought (p.19-1). I always thought that it meant one could read and write in one’s culture. He espouses that we have integrated the skill of writing and ingrained it so deeply that we cannot separate it from ourselves or recognize how it influences our concepts of language and literacy. He discusses how written language is more totalic and externalized a foreign, manufactured product. He refers to Plato’s condemnation of writing as “destroying memory”, weakening the mind. I always thought that writing helps to remember – expending the files, making retrieval easier.
Ong uses the example of thinking abut words as”evanescent”. We cannot hear a word in our minds in its entirety, without hearing each syllable and losing the previous part of the word, like hearing a bar of music or a melody (20, p1). I have to visualize the syllables or sound the syllable of a word to be able to spell or write them. I have to make a word and “event” as he calls it to make it a “thing”.
Written text may be spatially and visually fixed and permanent (that is why we-in the modern world of distrust of memory and spoken – like it), but I disagree that it is dead. Written language can be descriptive enough to evoke emotions. Poetry can be abstract and yet touch the subconscious. He speaks to this later in the piece. Graphics can be symbolic enough to represent an entire concept, but require the reader (or recipient) to be literate in the language of the culture.
He is correct that the written text will outdistance us. It will be around, long after we are gone. Isn’t that why it was invented? To record history for posterity. Ong seems to be arguing for and against the technology of writing at the same time. He identifies numerous points on how writing separates or divides. He then says that writing ties together, many things.
His use of language certainly distances my understanding of what he is trying to say. I get the gist of what he is saying, but the diction and syntax he uses makes reading his essays very difficult. Of all the compositions we have read for this class, Ong is by far the most difficult to understand. His way of writing reminds me of an exercise we did in high school English. For example, I could say “Scintillate, Scintillate, asteroid minific”, this is correct English; but it would be so much easier to understand if I said “Twinkle, twinkle, little star!
Distributed Cognition at work is a discussion of the purpose of writing and a demonstration of responsive writing vs. collaborative writing. The article points out that distributed cognition is not the same in the university as it is in the working world and He states that it should be called “socially shared knowledge” instead. Although the teacher will share knowledge with the students and the class, as a whole, shares the goal of successful learning. The acquisition of that knowledge may not be equal among the students and the students are more stratified in their success. The teacher shares the goal of success for the students, but achieves that goal in a different way.
His comparative discussion of economy and the corporate social structure and navigation of a ship as discursive was (for me) a little confusing. They both have their own culture, language, guiding policies and goals. I would argue, though, (not that it has anything to do with distributed cognition) that the social structures that establishes the monetary policies of the Bank of Canada, which stabilizes the economy of the country, could change, as the social structure changes.
In this composition by Diaz et al, they are discussing the theory of distributed cognition in the context of these two social structures (ships and banks) which have their various genres, both oral and written, expected language, and social stratification. In the corporate world, each member has a role and purpose and contributes to the communications within that social structure, each from their own level. Unlike the classroom where each student contributes to the knowledge of the class, but overall, do not contribute to the success or failure of the class, as a whole, or the University – if the student drops-out. I would argue this point that the students are the reason the University exists and their retention is the bread and butter (not to mention salaries) of the institution.
As I read this piece, I found myself saying “get to the point” The concept of cognitive discourse and distributed cognition may be applicable as a tool of analysis of structural genres in the real world, it doesn’t contribute to my understanding of methods of writing.
The Flower and Hayes essay discusses the processes that go into writing or composing as a series of decisions and choices. They look at the “stage model” of writing (prewriting, writing, and revision) developed by theorists to explore the process of development of composition. An attempt to discover what goes on in the mind of the writer.
Flower and Hayes have developed a different model that rests on four key points:
- The process of writing is best understood as a set of distinct thinking processes which writers orchestrate or organize during the writing process.
- These processes have a hierarchical, highly embedded organization in which any given process can be embedded within any other.
- The act of composing itself is a goal-directed thinking process, guided by the writer’s own growing network of goals.
- Writers create their own goals in two key ways: by generating both high level goals and supporting sub-goals which embody the writers developing sense of purpose, and then at times, by changing major goals or even establishing entirely new ones based on what ahs been learned in the act of writing.
I wrote these out to help myself understand their model as they explain it. In all of these essays about the process of writing it always seems like the authors or theorists are trying to establish what comes first (the chicken or the egg?)?
In order to understand where planning or goals setting comes in it is necessary to establish where decisions about language and grammar come in. Is this part of planning or is it part of revision?
I like the model they present because it allows for many “loops” in the process of writing. As Flower and Hayes put it: “A process that is hierarchical and admits many embedded sub-processes is powerful because it is flexible…” (285). the model seems more circular in its concept.
I believe each step of the process has its own goals. The essay offers a model that gives a good sense of goal-directed writing which illustrates how the process of writing occurs. Their use of the actual thought processes of the writers they studied helped develop this theory and, I presume, will help guide the teaching of writing through “process theory”. The problem with this article and the model seems to be the fact that they did not apply it to “student writers” and As Patricia Bizzell points out they didn’t take into account the interpretive conventions of the audience. As much as I had tremendous difficulty reading Ong’s essays, I read his essay on “The Audience Is Always Fiction” several weeks ago and I agree that, the writer must have an idea how the audience will interpret the writing and put themselves into the role of the audience. Which means the writer is making assumptions of the audience that an inexperienced writer may not know how to do. Flower and Hayes do not address this. As Bizzel also points out they have some circular arguments in the defense of their theory. She also mentions that although development of a “scientific theory” would lend credibility to “Discourse/composition studies” in the University community, as long as we are trying to create theory from human thinking, we need to be cautious about excluding the student’s own discourse community while socializing them to the academic discourse community. I cannot see how any one theory can take into account all the aspects that go into expressing ones ideas, whether orally or written. I appreciate Bizzel’s comments about the many ways that composition studies could be investigated.
