This article demonstrates the potential of discourse analysis for exploring cognitive processes that occur during writing. Discourse analytic studies and text comprehension studies are reviewed for their contribution to a cognitive process view of writing. Research is reported which combines discourse analysis with on-line pause data to determine how semantic propositions reflect sentence-level planning patterns. Results indicate that decisions regarding predicate relationships are central to sentence production. Some implications for a process model of writing are suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beaugrande, R.
& Dressler, W. (1980). Introduction to text linguistics. New York: Longman.
2.
Bracewell, R.
(1980). Writing as a cognitive activity. Visible Language, 14(4), 400-422.
3.
Bransford, J. D.
& Franks, J. S. (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331-350.
4.
Britton, J.
(1980). Shaping at the point of utterance. In A. Freedman & I. Pringle (Eds.), Reinventing the rhetorical tradition. L&S books for The Canadian Council of Teachers of English, Carleton University, Ottowa, Ontario.
5.
Chafe, W.
(1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Chafe, W.
(1977). Creativity in verabilization and its implications for the nature of stored knowledge. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7.
Clark, H. H.
& Haviland, S. F. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. Freddle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (Vol. I). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
8.
Cooper, C. R.
(1983). Procedures for describing written texts. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, and S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research in writing: Principles and methods. New York: Longman.
9.
Cooper, C. R.
& Matsuhashi, A. (1983). A theory of the writing process. In M. Martlew (Ed.), The psychology of written language: A developmental approach. Sussex, England: John Wiley.
10.
Daneŝ, F.
(1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In F. Daneŝ (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective. The Hague: Mouton.
11.
Danks, J. H.
(1977). Producing ideas and sentences. In Sheldon Rosenberg (Ed.), Sentence production: Developments in research and theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence J. Erlbaum.
12.
Diesing, P.
(1971). Patterns of discovery in the social science. New York: Aldine.
13.
van Dijk, T.
(1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence J. Erlbaum.
14.
Doyle, A.
(1982). The limitations of cohesion. Research in the Teaching of English, 16390-393.
15.
Fillmore, C. J.
(1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (Eds), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
16.
Glatt, B.
(1982). “Defining thematic progressions and their relationship to reader comprehension.” In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What Writers Know: The Language, Process, and Structure of Written Discourse. New York: Academic.
17.
Greene, M.
(1979). Language, literature, and the release of meaning. College English, 41, 123-135.
18.
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1974). The place of `functional sentence perspective' in the system of linguistic description. In F. Daneŝ (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective. The Hague: Mouton.
19.
Halliday, M.A.K.
& Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. New York: Longman.
20.
Haviland, S. E.
& Clark, H. H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process of comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 512-521.
21.
Hunt, K. W.
(1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Research Report No. 3, Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
22.
King, M.
& Rental, V. (1981). How children learn to write: A longitudinal study. Unpublished research report available from the Ohio State University Research Foundation, Columbus.
23.
Kintsch, W.
(1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence J. Erlbaum.
24.
Kintsch, W.
& Monk, D. (1972). Storage of complex information in memory: Some implications of the speed with which inferences can be made. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94:25-32.
25.
Kintsch, W.
& van Dijk, T. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85:363-395.
26.
Kintsch, W
& Vipond, D. (1979). Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory. In L. G. Nilsson (Ed.), Perspectives on memory research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence J. Erlbaum.
27.
Langleben, M.
(1981) Latent coherence, contextual meanings, and the interpretation of a text. Text, 3, 279-313.
28.
Lloyd-Jones, R.
(1981). Rhetorical choices in writing. In C. H. Frederiksen & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: process, development and communication (Volume 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence J. Erlbaum.
29.
Matsuhashi, A.
(1981). Pausing and Planning: The tempo of written discourse production. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 113-134.
30.
Matsuhashi, A.
(1982). Explorations of the real-time production of written discourse. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse. New York: Academic Press.
31.
Meyer, B.
(1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
32.
Moffett, J.
(1968) Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
33.
Mosenthal, J.
& Tierney, R. J. (1982). Between the horns of an applied dilemma: Cohesive analysis in reading comprehension research. Center for Study of Reading, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (unpublished)
34.
O'Donnell, R. C.
, Griffin, W. J., & Norris, R. C. (1967). Syntax of kindergarten and elementary school children: A transformational analysis. Research Report No. 8. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
35.
Rieser, H.
(1978). On the development of text grammar. In W. Dressler (Ed.), Current trends in textlinguistics. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
36.
Rochester, S.
& Martin, R.J. (1979). Crazy talk: A study of cohesive patterns in the discourse of schizophrenic speakers. New York: Plenum Press.
37.
Sachs, J.
(1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception and Pscyhophysics, 2(9), 437-442.
38.
Schank, R.
& Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence J. Erlbaum.
39.
Schoenfeld, A.
(1982). Beyond the purely cognitive: Metacognition and social cognition as driving forces in intellectual performance. Paper presented at the annual American Educational Research Association meeting, New York, March.
40.
Shaughnessy, M.
(1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
Shuy, R.
(1981). A holistic view of language. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 101-111.
42.
Spittle, K.
& Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Semantic aspects of real time written discourse production. In Hairston, M. & Selfe, C. (Eds.) Selected papers from the 1981 Texas writing research conference. University of Texas at Austin, English Department, Austin.
43.
Stratman, J.
(1982). Teaching written argument: The significance of Toulmin's layout for sentence combining. College English, 44, 718-733.
44.
Tierney, R. J.
& Mosenthal, J. (1983). Cohesion and textual coherence. Research in the Teaching of English, 17(3), 215-229.
45.
Toulmin, S.
(1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Turner, A.
& Greene, E. (1977). The construction and use of a propositional text base. Technical Report No. 63. Boulder: University of Colorado, Institute for the Study of Intellectual Behavior, April.
47.
Vande Kopple, W.
(1982). Functional sentence perspective, composition, and reading. College Composition and Communication, 33, 50-63.
48.
Vipond, D.
(1980). Micro- and macroprocesses in text comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 19276-296.
49.
Witte, S.
& Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204.
