A brief overview of methods relating language education to psychological theories and models is provided. Strengths and weaknesses of behaviorist and mentalist approaches are surveyed, followed by an outline of a recently developing cognitive-process approach. The approach is then illustrated with an individual case study from the University of Florida writing program, with special consideration of the concerns of technical writing on the topic of automobile repair instructions. It is argued that specific tendencies carry over from speech habits that are partly supportive and partly contrary to success in learning the skills of technical writing. Consequently, appropriate training should be able to alleviate the contrary tendencies, provided we take into account the operations of writing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BloomfieldL., Language, Holt, New York, 1933.
2.
ChomskyN., Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1965.
3.
KintschW., Memory and Cognition, Wiley, New York, 1977.
4.
NystrandM. (ed.), What Writers Know, Studies in the Psychology of Writing, Academic Press, New York, 1982.
5.
MowrerH., The Psychologist Looks at Language, American Psychologist, 9, pp. 660–694, 1954.
6.
SkinnerB. F., Verbal Behavior, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1957.
7.
ChomskyN., Review of Verbal Behavior by B. F. Skinner, Language, 35, pp. 28–58, 1959.
8.
OsgoodC., On Understanding and Creating Sentences, American Psychologist, 18, pp. 735–751, 1964.
9.
MillerG., Some Psychological Studies of Grammar, American Psychologist, 17, pp. 748–762, 1962.
10.
MillerG. and McKeanK., A Chronometric Study of Some Relations Between Sentences, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, pp. 297–308, 1964.
11.
FodorJ. and GarrettM., Some Syntactic Determinants of Sentence Complexity, Perception and Psychophysics, 2, pp. 289–296, 1967.
12.
FodorJ.BeverT. and GarrettM., The Psychology of Language, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974.
13.
LeveltW., A Survey of Studies in Sentence Perception, LeveltW. and D'ArcaisFlores F. D. G. (eds.), Studies in the Perception of Language, Wiley, New York, 1974.
14.
de BeaugrandeR., Text Production: Toward a Science of Composition, Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey, 1982.
15.
McCawleyJ., Some Ideas Not to Live By, Die neueren Sprachen, 75, pp. 151–165, 1976.
16.
van DijkT., Acceptability in Context, GreenbaumS. (ed.), Language and Acceptability, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 39–61, 1977.
17.
SnowC. and MeijerG., On the Secondary Nature of Syntactic Intutions, GreenbaumS. (ed.), Language and Acceptability, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 163–177, 1977.
18.
BroenP., “A Discussion of the Linguistic Environment of the Young Language-Learning Child,” paper at the American Speech and Hearing Convention, Chicago, 1971.
19.
RobinsonI., The New Grammarian's Funeral, Cambridge, London, 1976.
20.
de BeaugrandeR., Text, Discourse, and Process, Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey, 1980.
21.
UngeheuerG., Paraphrase and Syntaktische Tiefenstruktur, Folia Linguistica, 3, pp. 178–227, 1969.
22.
PikeK., Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior, Mouton, the Hague, 1967.
23.
ZoellnerR., Talk-Write: A Behavioral Pedagogy for Composition, College English, 30, pp. 267–320, 1969.
24.
SidmanM., Operant Techniques, BachrachArthur (ed.), Experimental Foundations of Clinical Psychology, Basic Books, New York, pp. 170–210, 1964.
25.
WolpeJ.SalterA. and ReynaL. (eds.), The Conditioning Therapies, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1964.
26.
ZoellnerR., Lucy's Dance Lessons and Accountability in English, College Composition and Communication, 22, pp. 229–236, 1971.
27.
LounsburyF., Transitional Probability, Lingustic Structure, and Systems of Habit-Family Hierarchies, OsgoodC. and SebeokT. (eds.), Psycholinguistics: A Survey of Theory and Research Problems, Indiana Unversity Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 1965.
28.
BachrachA., Some Applications of Operant Conditioning to Behavioral Therapy, WolpeJ.SalterA. and ReynaL. (eds.), The Conditioning Therapies, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, pp. 62–78, 1964.
29.
ShuttP., After Wrap-Around Blackboards, What?, College English, 30, pp. 662–667, 1969.
30.
ChristensenF., A Generative Rhetoric of the Sentence, College Composition and Communication, 14, pp. 155–161, 1963.
31.
ChristensenF., The Problem of Defining a Mature Style, English Journal, 57, pp. 572–579, 1968.
32.
MellonJ., Transformational Sentence Combining: A Method for Enhancing the Development of Syntactic Fluency in English Composition, NCTE, Urbana, Illinois, 1969.
33.
BatemanD. and ZidonisF., The Effect of a Knowledge of Generative Grammar Upon the Growth of Language Complexity, Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio, 1964.
34.
MoffetJ., Teaching the Universe of Discourse, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts, 1965.
35.
ClarkH. and ClarkE., Psychology and Language, Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich, New York, 1977.
36.
BruceB.CollinsA.RubinA. and GentnerD., A Cognitive Science Approach to Writing, ERIC Report EC 157038, Urbana, Illinois, 1978.
37.
FlowerL. and HayesJ. R., A Process Model of Composition, GreggL. and SteinbergE. (eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1980.
38.
GreggL. and SteinbergE. (eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1980.
39.
NystrandM. (ed.), What Writers Know: Studies in the Psychology of Language, Academic Press, New York, 1981.
40.
HirschE. D., The Philosophy of Composition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1977.
41.
MeyerB., Research on Prose Comprehension: Applications for Composition Teachers, Arizona State University Prose Learning Series Report No. 2, Tempe, Arizona, 1979.
42.
FlowerL.HayesJ. R. and SwartsH., Revising Functional Documents: The Scenario Principle, Carnegie Mellon Document Design Project Technical Report No. 10, Pittsburg, 1980.
43.
TierneyR. and LaZanskyJ., The Rights and Responsibilities of Readers and Writers: A Contractual Agreement, Center for the Study of Reading Education Report No. 15, Urbana, Illinois, 1980.
44.
de BeaugrandeR. and ColbyB., Narrative Models of Actions and Interaction, Cognitive Science, 3, pp. 43–66, 1979.
45.
de BeaugrandeR., Psychology of Writing: Past, Present, Future, NystrandM. (ed.), What Writers Know, Studies in the Psychology of Writing, Academic Press, New York, pp. 211–267, 1982.
46.
GibsonE., Perceptual Learning and the Theory of Word Perception, Cognitive Psychology, 2, pp. 351–368, 1971.
WalkerD.Understanding Spoken Language, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.
49.
WoodsW. and BrachmanK., Research in Natural Language Understanding, Bolt, Beranek & Newman Technical Report, 3963, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978.
50.
Marslen-WilsonW., Sentence Perception as an Interactive Parallel Process, Science, 189, pp. 226–228, 1975.
51.
BobrowS. and BowerG., Comprehension and Recall of Sentences, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, pp. 455–461, 1969.
52.
TreismanA. and TuxworthJ., Immediate and Delayed Recall of Sentences after Perceptual Processing at Different Levels, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, pp. 38–44, 1974.
53.
NormanD. and BobrowD., On Data-Limited and Resource-Limited Processes, Cognitive Psychology, 7, pp. 44–64, 1975.
54.
de BeaugrandeR., Design Criteria for Process Models of Reading, Reading Research Quarterly, 16, pp. 261–315, 1980–81.
55.
GroszB., The Representation and Use of Focus in Dialogue Understanding, Stanford Research Institute Artificial Intelligence Report 151, Menlo Park, 1977.
56.
de BeaugrandeR., Information and Grammar in Technical Writing, College Composition and Communication, 28, pp. 325–332, 1977.
57.
CollinsA. and LoftusE., A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing, Psychological Review, 82, pp. 407–428, 1975.
58.
PaivioA., Perceptual Comparisons Through the Mind's Eye, Memory and Cognition, 3, pp. 625–647, 1975.
59.
FleschR., Say What You Mean, Harper and Row, New York, 1972.
60.
Goldman-EislerF., Pauses, Clauses, Sentences, Language and Speech, 15, pp. 103–113, 1972.
61.
O'ConnellD.KowalS., and HörmannH., Semantic Determinants of Pauses, Psychologische Forschungen, 33, pp. 50–67, 1969.
62.
O'ConnellD., One of Many Units: The Sentence, RosenbergS. (ed.), Sentence Production, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 307–313, 1977.
63.
MartinJ. and StrangeW., The Perception of Hesitation in Spontaneous Speech, Perception and Psychophysics, 3, pp. 427–432, 1968.
64.
McCorduckP., Machines Who Think, Freeman, San Francisco, 1979.
65.
PearsallT., Audience Analysis for Technical Writing, Glencoe, Beverly Hills, 1969.
66.
MathesJ. and StevensonD., Designing Technical Reports, Bobs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1976.
67.
Information and Grammar in Technical Writing, College Composition and Communication, 28, 1977.
68.
Communication in Technical Writing, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 8: 1, 1978.
69.
Theoretical Foundations for the Automatic Production and Processing of Technical Reports, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 9: 3, 1979.
