In this study, the author examines the ways a small group of students and their teacher from an intermediate-level university writing class use the texts they create to negotiate private and shared public understandings of the complex interactional contexts of their work together. The author begins by examining some of the competing goals and motives that energize the participants' classroom efforts. To understand the sources of those diverse purposes and how they serve to shape and sustain subsequent classroom interactions, the author develops an activity-based framework of analysis that draws extensively from dialogical and functional-linguistic approaches to language, context, and interaction. Writing and written communication are portrayed as linguistically mediated and interactively structured processes of contextualization. Implications for how we conceptualize and organize classroom interactions, such as intensive peer review and student-teacher conferencing, and the central role that talk and writing must play in operationalizing those interactional contexts are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackerman, J.
(1990). Translating context into action. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, M. Kantz, K. McCormick, & W. Peck (Eds.), Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process (pp. 173-193). New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
Bakhtin, M. M.
(1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
3.
Berkenkotter, C.
, & Huckin, T. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written Communication, 10, 475-509.
4.
Bitzer, L.
(1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.
5.
Faigley, L.
, & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400-414.
6.
Flower, L.
(1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
7.
Flower, L.
, & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
8.
Goodwin, C.
, & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 1-41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Graumann, C. F.
(1989). Perspective setting and taking in verbal interaction. In R. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social context (pp. 95-122). New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
10.
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.
11.
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1984). Language as code and language as behaviour: A systemicfunctional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. In R. P. Fawcett, M.A.K. Halliday, S. M. Lamb, & A. Makkai (Eds.), The semiotics of culture and language: Vol. 1. Language as social semiotic (pp. 3-35). London: Frances Pinter.
12.
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
13.
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1991). Towards probabilistic interpretations. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses (pp. 39-61). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
14.
Halliday, M.A.K.
, & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
15.
Holquist, M.
(1990). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. London: Routledge.
16.
Lemke, J.
(1991). Text production and dynamic text semantics. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses (pp. 23-38). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
17.
Leont'ev, A. N.
(1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). New York: M. E. Sharpe.
18.
Marková, I.
, & Foppa, K. (Eds.). (1990). The dynamics of dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
19.
Marková, I.
, & Foppa, K. (Eds.). (1991). Asymmetries in dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
20.
Martin, J. R.
(1985). Process and text: Two aspects of human semiosis. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse: Vol. 1. Selected theoretical papers from the Ninth International Systemic Workshop (pp. 248-274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
21.
Nystrand, M.
(1982). The structure of textual space. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse (pp. 75-86). New York: Academic Press.
22.
Nystrand, M.
(1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
23.
Nystrand, M.
(1989). A social-interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6, 66-85.
24.
Nystrand, M.
(1991, April). On the negotiation of understanding between students and teachers: Towards a social-interactionist model of school learning. Paper presented at the 1991 Convention of the American Educational Research Association, Madison, WI.
25.
Nystrand, M.
(1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
26.
Nystrand, M.
, & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261-290.
27.
Prior, P.
(1997). Literate activity and disciplinarity: The heterogeneous (re)production of American studies around a graduate seminar. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4, 275-295.
28.
Prior, P.
(1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
Rommetveit, R.
(1974). On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. London: Wiley.
30.
Rommetveit, R.
(1992). Outlines of a dialogically based social-cognitive approach to human cognition and communication. In A. H. Wold (Ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind (pp. 19-44). Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
31.
Russell, D. R.
(1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. 51-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
Russell, D. R.
(1997). Writing and genre in higher education and workplaces: A review of studies that use cultural-historical activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4, 224-237.
33.
Steiner, E.
(1991). A functional perspective on language, action, and interpretation. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
34.
Thibault, P. J.
(1987). An interview with Michael Halliday. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday. Vol. 1 (pp. 601-627). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Bejamins.
35.
Vološinov, V. N.
(1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
Vygotsky, L.
(1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
Vygotsky, L.
(1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
Wells, G.
(1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics & Education, 5, 1-37.
39.
Wertsch, J. V.
(Ed.). (1981). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
40.
Wertsch, J. V.
(1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
Wertsch, J. V.
(1995). The need for action in sociocultural research. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alverez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 56-74). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Wold, A. H.
(Ed.). (1992). The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
