User:GraberM/sandbox

Test edit of a section on Cognitive Rhetoric: Edited Emig and added Bizzell.

Colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University, Flower and Hayes conducted studies on problem solving using think-aloud protocols while writing, overturning the notion that writing proceeded in a linear fashion from pre-writing to writing to revision.

Janet Emig explored elements of the writing process and the relationship between process and product. Building upon cognitive theories of transactional and experiential learning by John Dewey and Jean Piaget, Emig's contribution to cognitive rhetoric is her differentiation between speech acts and writing acts. Because speaking and writing are different ways of performing linguistic functions, Emig argues that the process of speaking and the process of writing result in differing means of expression. One issue Emig points out is that writing can be a sort of trap since the writer becomes a participant in the event through their writing. Another issue Emig identifies involves the way the structure of writing can shape how an event is presented by the writer. This structure becomes a conflict, Emig asserts, because writing should be dictated by the writer's experience--not the form.

Patricia Bizzell juxtaposes writing and thinking to illustrate problems between form and convention. Bizzell identifies two theoretical positions: (1) inner-directed theorists approach writing instruction by focusing on style and conventions, and (2) outer-directed theorists believe these language functions are innate. The inner-directed theory is where students use what they know and apply it to a writing situation (thinking process). The outer-directed theory argues forms can’t be taught because how writers choose language may be different depending on the rhetorical situation of the writing task or objective (social process). According to Bizzell, students participate in a variety of discourse communities, and writers are limited by the writer’s ability to define the rules which exist in that particular discourse. Bizzell calls for a more flexible process that considers where the writer is at in their process and argues that the writer should use what they know to apply to the task; then, go back and figure out what they don’t know—adapting their task to the situational.

Comments from Dr. Vetter
Hello -

Great work here,. Just a couple of points of feedback.


 * 1) Because the whole paragraph is on Emig, you really only need to put the reference once at the very end of the paragraph (much like we would do in academic writing).
 * 2) I don't think you need the quote from Emig, but if you do include it you will need a separate in-text reference with the page number.
 * 3) I stumbled due to your use of the verb "note" in the phrase "Janet Emig's contribution to cognitive rhetoric note differences" - perhaps try something like, Emig's contribution to cognitive rhetoric is her differentiation between speech acts and writing acts.