Comp Theory Week 2

Perl’s study seems virtually useless to me. It begins with assumptions that are reminiscent of Peter Ramus, dividing cognitive processes into discrete, diachronic units. This extract focuses on one writer only, Tony, and though it claims in the beginning that it is “modest” and “probing” closes with self-fulfilling general conclusions that are dependent on the cognitive model seemingly pulled from thin air by the studies opening assumptions. I suspect that the background of this model is found in psychological studies and research, but given the seemingly haphazard nature of the experimental model, this is pure conjecture on my part.

Perl divides first into two categories of writing assignments, “reflexive” and “extensive.” The structure of the writing sessions must have changed between the assignments. Reflexive writing (writing about the self) is characterized by longer sessions and more drafts (3) compared to extensive writing (impersonal description) which has shorter sessions and fewer drafts (2). It is not explained if the change in the number of drafts was assigned, or voluntary on the part of the subject, however the assumption put forth by the study is that reflexive writing is more difficult. I can only wonder if this was really true, or dictated by the change in experimental model.

The quasi-scientific breakdown of different writing processes into a mathematical model seemed questionable as well. Each of the descriptive categories seemed highly subject to interpretation. However, the extensive splitting of the process down was admirable just for its creativity. My primary response to this study was to conclude that it tells us a lot about Tony, but very little about writing in general. It is self-fulfilling, though I must admit that I was curious to hear more about the miscue analysis, because these are very common writing problems for everyone.

Where Perl’s study focused on analyzing a temporal process of prewriting, writing, and revision Sommers study focuses exclusively on the process of revision. Sommers uses definitions provided by the writers themselves, contrasting the reactions between student and mature writers. Mature writers focus more on writing as an unfinished process, a process of continual rediscovery and strengthening. Student writers focus more on the mechanical aspects. Once again, a basic assumption underlies her conclusion: the mature writers are better, so where there is difference between them and the students, greater emphasis must be given to those areas when teaching.

The case study method used by Sommers provides little in the way of data that could not be obtained by other means. I found it the more interesting of the two studies, but the difference is slight due to the overall lack of any real significance (to my thinking) of either. This is based on my rejection of writing as a linear activity that can be mapped diachronically.

Flower and Hayes also reject this diachronic version of process theory, proposing in its stead a much more complex modular hierarchical structure. Their model of cognition owes much to computer flowcharting and information architecture structures. Proposing a lexical, linguistic approach to the writing process seems to be a far more fruitful path; in many ways the process of “narrowing choices” based in rhetorical situation seems to be closer to my view of my own process. However, they do provide a convincing case for their modules, or the presence of hierarchy, in my opinion.

The fundamental assumption of the article is that writing is a goal oriented activity. However, they concede that those goals may shift during the writing process. This makes arguing for a neat cut-and-fit approach where writing “tools” are used to solve a “rhetorical problem” problematic. If the goal of solving the problem shifts, what does this mean to models built on this assumption? There could be more work in this area regarding the “modules” of writing activity, as tools, to increase productive writing. But the idea of a cognitive model in the largest sense seems a bit far-fetched. Of the three articles, I feel that this one best avoids the problem of preconceptions, of shoving data into a preexisting model. But the hypotheses proposed are severely lacking in development or proof.