Chapter 27 - The Reading Writing Nexus in Discourse Research

I selected this chapter because the focus of my (life?) paper is on inference at the intersection of reading and writing. More specifically, I wondered how inferential thinking in reading relates to implication in writing and how we can use writing as a tool to develop both. This whole idea really came from Karen who commented on how she used what she did as a writer to help her develop inferential thinking skills in her readers. The interesting thing is, there really isn’t that much out there on this topic specifically. Instead, I’ve had to go venturing into the worlds of reading, writing, psychology, composition and rhetoric to try and put together a lens through which to view the topic. I knew that we needed to select one chapter for our paper/presentation and after previewing and reading this chapter, I felt it was the best. Because I know that you will be asked to read parts of this chapter, I wanted to highlight the parts I felt were important. The very act of “bulleting” the chapter helped me to delve back into the chapter and to distinguish what supports the work I’ve done and still raises questions. It was really a writing to learn activity (which is discussed in the next chapter – chapter 28).


I still struggle with the best analogy for how reading and writing are connected. In my paper I call them opposite sides of the cognitive coin. This chapter (and many other texts I’ve read, all of which fall under the theory of social discourse, I believe) positions both reading and writing as an act of construction – the writer has to construct meaning and the reader, in reading what the writer has written, must also compose meaning. Because readers bring different background knowledge and assumptions to a text, they may construct meaning from the same text very differently than the writer intended. Knorr-Cetina is quoted on page 439 as noting, “a text can be considered ‘co-produced by the authors and the members of the audience to which it is directed.” (p.439) While this can’t be avoided, there are certain endeavors a writer can undertake to better consider and support her readers. And to me, this is the heart of where inferential thinking lies.

Readers look to clues from the author to make an inference, but an author must leave some sort of “hole” for a reader to fill in order to promote inferential thinking. Do most of us set out to “write an inference for our readers”? I don’t think so, but we do want to weave a web of language, so to speak – and there is the struggle. We can’t leave too many holes for readers to fill because our writing will be disjointed. If our writing is literal to the point of austerity, then we have only given our reader a superficial, “surface” piece. If anyone out there knits (who has time?), you might be able to connect this to knitting a scarf or a sweater: too many dropped stitches and the piece is a mess, but by using a technique like purling, a knitter creates a more interesting, complex final product. Do syntactic and semantic complexity demand more of the reader? Yes. (See Kroll, 1986 on page 439.)

How then do writers get readers to “think” (ergo, infer)? It seems that certain literary techniques invite a reader to do just that: the use of figurative language, hyperbole, allusion, etc. We tend to judge high quality literature by the devices the author uses – a part of his or her craft. What is it about the richness of certain works that invites us to think inferentially? Why aren’t I constantly seeing something new when I read, “Go, Dog, Go” but I do when I read “Encounter” by Jane Yolen or “Voices in the Park” by Anthony Browne? When a writer enumerates instead of describes, the result is often unengaging to readers. (Nancy Atwell offers a lot of good examples of student “before” and “after” pieces in Lessons That Change Writers.) And where do visual inferences enter this realm that seems so dominated by text? Why have writing teachers asked their students to, “show, not tell”? Isn’t it because they are asking novice writers to write with the reader in mind? Aren’t writers forced to infer something about their readers when they write? (See the Witte study on page 436.) Nelson (the author of this chapter) points out that, “Writing is an intentional act; writers intend their texts to have particular effects on their audience of readers,” and that, “Writers can be said to ‘read’ their readers – to consider readers and the ways in which those readers might understand, misunderstand, or even refute texts.” (p.439) I think Volosinov (1973) captures the connection between reading and writing best by pointing out that, “word is a two-sided act. It is determined equally by whose word it is and for whom it is meant.” (p.86)

I have also struggled throughout my research and writing to try and focus more on the writing side of the connection. Like Deb said when she came in to speak about the Writing Project, I have a difficult time seeing the two dichotomously. I was heartened when I read the following on page 436, “Some of what is now known about writing comes from studies considered reading research, and some knowledge about reading comes from studies considered to be writing research. Whether a study is considered reading research or writing research has often been a function of the community from which the researcher belongs, the forum in which the report was published, and how the study was framed.” While reading may have “trumped” writing through attention it garners because of federal mandates and funding, reading and writing are different, yet the same. Writing offers us so many opportunities to help students improve both as readers and writers; but so too does reading do just the same. The section subtitled “Acquiring and Applying Discourse Knowledge” was very instructive in regards to what I think is a somewhat superficial separation. The studies conducted by Shanahan were the most enlightening (and I’m sure they will be even more enlightening once I take statistics and know exactly what it means use a “linear structural relations procedure” (LISREL)!


I hope this post sets the tone for our conversation on Monday, April 5. You can see I still have a lot of questions and I’m sure my initial literature review has barely scratched the surface on the subject.
Not to be snarky, but I found great joy in discovering what appears to be an omission in the references section of this chapter. The Vipond and Hunt 1984 study is cited, but not the 1986 study/ publication. If someone out there can find it and I am wrong, great! Would you please let me know? I really like to read it before this paper is due!  You'll also note that the year of the Kroll citation is inaccurate.  Maybe I am just engaging in this editorial schadenfreude becuase I got my official rejection for the article I wrote last semester.  Sigh.

Chapter 27 – The Reading-Writing Nexus in Discourse Research


Chapter highlights:

• The cognitive revolution of the 1970s overturned the behavioralist “black box” paradigm and reading comprehension became a major focus of research. -435

• The attention to reading comprehension helped facilitate connections with writing, because comprehension was being viewed as the making, instead of the reception of meaning. -435

• Both reading and writing came to be viewed as a came to be viewed as generative processes, and a composing model of reading was even proposed (Tierney & Pearson, 1983). – (436)

• The two could no longer be viewed as simple inverses with one strictly generative and the other strictly receptive. (436)

• When reading one’s own writing, one evaluates it (Flower & Hayes) – 436

• Some of what is now known about writing comes from studies considered reading research, and some knowledge about reading comes from studies considered to be writing research. Whether a study is considered reading research or writing research has often been a function of the community from which the researcher belongs, the forum in which the report was published, and how the study was framed. (436)

• Witte study (1983) conducted a writing that had important implications for reading. College writers all revised the same text so it would be easier to understand but maintain information. “The superior revisions were made by writers who, as readers, made inferences among topics and cued those relations to their own readers.” (436)

• Is development in a particular aspect of reading accompanied by development aspect of writing and visa versa?

• Participant Connection

• What is discourse research? - 437

o Cognitive and social are dichotomous, but what is considered cognitive derives from the social. Discourse knowledge – cognitive, but acquired socially.

o It is applied socially – pragmatically – in acts of communication

o Various types of linguistic knowledge fall under this umbrella, including metadiscourse: knowledge of authorial devices for guiding the reader

o Although cognitive research in writing has not seen as much expansion, the body of knowledge regarding the writing process continues to grow and more is being done by researchers in Europe

• Is development in a particular aspect of reading accompanied by development aspect of writing and visa versa?

o Intervention and correlational approach

o Shanahan and Lomax study (1986) – interactive configuration – reading and writing influenced each other – as opposed to a one-way influence

o Imitation (mimesis) – writers acquire new discourse features for their own texts from reading texts with those features.

• Writing for Readers

o From writing end – writers’ efforts to accommodate their readers – the kind of support that goes by the name response

o Readers relationships with writers – Volosinov (1973) “word is s two-sided act. It is determined equally by whose word it is and for whom it is meant.” (p.86)

o Knorr-Cetina (1981) “a text can be ‘co-produced by the authors and by the members of the audience to which it is directed.” (p.106)

• Writing for Readers – p. 439

o “Writing is an intentional act; writers intend their texts to have particular effects on their audience of readers.” P. 439

o “Writers can be said to ‘read’ their readers – to consider readers and the ways in which those readers might understand, misunderstand, or even refute texts.

o They in a sense “write” or create their readers

o They do not have a direct path into other’s thought

o Writers can generate material for their texts through anticipating possible responses, and also epistemic value, because writers must learn (if they already do not know) much of what their audiences might know.

o Social cognition – the ability to consider the perspectives of others and to make assumptions about what they want to gain from their reading (Rubin (1984)

o Barry Kroll’s research on audience – there is a connection between lexical and syntactic complexity and the ease with which children read (and comprehend) text. (1984 – wrong in the book!)

o Hypertext – potential and problems – 440

• Reading the Writer – p. 442

o Reading researchers have often found that speculating about authorial intent is often an integral part of understanding text (Gibbs, 2001)

o “Accomplished readers often seem to “read” (or invent or construct) the author making inferences and assumptions, and their perceptions can influence their understanding of a text.” (p. 442)

o Rhetorical reading – “readers actively trying to understand the author’s intent, the context, and how other readers might respond.” (Haas and Flower, 1988, p. 181)

o Vipond & Hunt (1984) – sophisticated readers “imputed motives” (p.26) as they sought to discern what the author was getting at, 1986 study by same authors looked at how writers lead readers to the points they want to make using nonstandard elements