Cover not available
Part of
Writing(s) at the Crossroads: The process–product interface
Edited by Georgeta Cislaru
[Not in series 194] 2015
► pp. 21–32

Some problems encountered in the description and analysis of the dynamics of writing

| Université Paris-Sorbonne, EA 4509- STIH
Research dealing with the dynamics of writing is carried out in different theoretical fields and consequently resorts to different research methodologies. The aim of this paper is to study which definitions of the act of writing underlie the research reports which all intend to describe its dynamics.Two aspects of the dynamics of writing will be studied in order to see how they are organized into systems that configure the description of the act of writing in diverging ways: (i) temporality itself with an emphasis on the consequences of distortion or focus caused by the size of the time span or the granularity chosen; (ii) the notion of writing seen as a partly observable and partly unobservable activity that leads the researchers to reconstruct it in ways that differ with the indices they have selected.
Keywords: act of writing, methodology, temporality, writing
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 5 August 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.194.02pla
References (51)
References
Adam, Jean-Michel. 2011. La linguistique textuelle: introduction à l’analyse textuelle des discours. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Alamargot, Denis, Christophe Dansac, David Chesnet, and Michel Fayol. 2007. “Parallel processing before and after pauses: A combined analysis of graphomotor and eye movements during procedural text production.” In Writing and Cognition: Research and Applications, ed. by Mark Torrance, Luuk van Waes and David Galbraith, 13–29. Amsterdam, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Albalat, Antoine. 1903. Le travail du style enseigné par les corrections manuscrites des grands écrivains. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Authier-Revuz, Jacqueline. 1995. Ces mots qui ne vont pas de soi. Boucles réflexives et non-coïncidence du dire. Paris: Larousse. Google Scholar
Baddeley, Alan. D. 1986. Working Memory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bereiter Carl, and Marlene Scardamalia. 1987. The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Boré, Catherine. 2013. “L’énonciation dialogique au principe de la créativité du sujet scolaire.” In L’école, l’écriture et la création. Études françaises et brésiliennes, ed. by Catherine Boré and Eduardo Calil, 55–74. Louvain-La-Neuve: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Bourdin, Béatrice. 1999. “Mémoire de travail et production langagière: comparaison de l’oral et de l’écrit chez les adultes et les enfants.” L’année psychologique 99(1): 123–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdin, Béatrice, Danièle Cogis, and Jean-Noël Foulin. 2010. “Influence des traitements graphomoteurs et orthographiques sur la production de textes écrits: perspective pluridisciplinaire.” Langages 177: 57–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Britton, James, Antony Burgess, Nancy Martin, Alex Mc Leod, and Harold Rosen. 1975. The Development of Writing Abilities (11–18). London: Macmillan Education and Welfare.Google Scholar
Bronckart, Jean-Paul. 1996. Activité langagière, textes et discours. Pour un interactionnisme discursif. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
Chanquoy, Lucile, Jean-Noël Foulin, and Michel Fayol. 1990. “Temporal management of short text writing by children and adults.” European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology 10: 513–540.Google Scholar
Charolles, Michel. 1986. “L’analyse des processus rédactionnels: aspects linguistiques, psychologiques et didactiques.” Pratiques 49: 3–21.Google Scholar
Chuy, Maria, and Fabienne Rondelli. 2010. “Traitement des contraintes linguistiques et cognitives dans construction de la cohérence textuelle.” Langages 177: 83–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fayol, Michel, and Sébastien Pacton. 2006. “L’accord du participe passé: entre compétition de procédures et récupération en mémoire.” Langue française 151: 59–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenoglio, Irène. 2012. “L’abyssal in vivo de l’écrire. Mise en abyme scripturale chez Pascal Quignard.” In Écritures du XXIe siècle. Genèses in vivo, ed. by Claudia Amigo Pino, Irène Fenoglio and Veronica Galindez-Jorge, 117–146. Paris: Le manuscrit.Google Scholar
Flower, Linda, John R. Hayes, Linda Carey, Karen Schriver, and James Stratman. 1986. “Detection, Diagnosis, and the Strategies of Revision.” College Composition and Communication 37(1): 16–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Debanc, Claudine. 1986. “L’Intérêt des modèles du processus rédactionnel pour une pédagogie de l’écriture.” Pratiques 49: 23–49.Google Scholar
Grésillon, Almuth. 1994. Éléments de critique génétique. Lire les manuscrits modernes. Paris: Puf.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hay, Louis. 1979. “La critique génétique. Origine et perspectives.” In Essais de Critique Génétique, ed. by Louis Hay, 227–236. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Hayes, John R. 1996. “A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing.” In The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications, ed. by Michael C. Levy, and Sarah Ransdell, 1–28. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hayes, John. R., and Linda S. Flower. 1980. “Identifying the organization of writing processes.” In Cognitive Processes in Writing, ed. by Lee W. Gregg, and Erwin R. Steinberg, 3–30. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960 (trad. 1963). Essais de linguistique générale. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Kellogg, Ronald T. 1996. “A model of working memory in writing.” In The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications, ed. by Michael C. Levy, and Sarah Ransdell, 57–71. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kellogg, Ronald T., Thierry Olive, and Annie Piolat. 2007. “Verbal and visual working memory in written sentence production.” In Writing and Cognition: Research and Applications, ed. by Gert Rijlaarsdam, Mark Torrance, Luuk van Waes, and David Galbraith (Studies in Writing 20), 1–12. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter, and Teun van Dijk. 1978. “Toward a model of Text comprehension and production.” Psychological Review 85(5): 363–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leblay, Christophe. 2007. “L’avant-texte comme texte sur le vif. Analyse génétique d’opérations d’écriture en temps réel.” Langue française 155: 101–113.Google Scholar
Leblay, Christophe, and Gilles Caporossi (Eds.). 2014. Temps de l’écriture. Enregistrements et représentations. Louvain-La-Neuve: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Leitjen, Mariëlle, Luuk Van Waes, Karen Schriver, John R. Hayes. 2014. “Writing in the workplace: constructing documents using multiple digital sources.” Journal of Writing Research 5(3): 285–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lundquist, Lita. 1999. “Le Factum Textus: fait de grammaire, fait de linguistique ou fait de cognition?” Langue française 121: 56–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsuhashi, Ann. 1982. “Exploration in the real-time production of written discourse.“ In What Writers know. The Language Process and Structure of Written Discourse, ed. by Martin Nystrand, 269–290. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McCutchen, Deborah. 2011. “From novice to expert: implications of language skills and writing-relevant knowledge for memory during the development of writing skill.” Journal of Writing Research 3(1): 51–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Donald. M. 1972. “Teach writing as a process not product.” The Leaflet: 11–14.Google Scholar
Olive, Thierry. 2002. “La gestion en temps réel de la production verbale: méthodes et données.” In Traité des Sciences Cognitives: Production du langage, ed. by Michel Fayol, 131–147. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Methods, tools and techniques for the on-line study of the writing process.” In Writing: Processes, Tools and Techniques, ed. by Nathan L. Mertens, 1–18. New York: Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
. 2011. “L’analyse du décours temporel de la production écrite.” In Sciences du langage et nouvelles technologies, ed. by Thierry Ponchon, and Isabelle Laborde-Milaa, 61–68. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar
Olive, Thierry, Jean-Michel Passerault, Jean-Louis Lebrave, and Nathalie Le Bigot. 2010. “La dimension visuo-spatiale de la production de textes: approches de psychologie cognitive et de critique génétique.” Langages 177: 29–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perl, Sondra. 1979. “The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers.” Research in the Teaching of English 13(4): 317–336.Google Scholar
Petillon, Sabine. 2006. “Intentionnalité et révision à l’épreuve du manuscrit d’écrivain. Genèse de Génitrix de Mauriac.” Langages 164: 26–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plane, Sylvie. 2006. “Singularités et constantes de la production d’écrit – L’écriture comme traitement de contraintes.” In Didactique de l’écrit. La construction des savoirs et le sujet-écrivant, ed. by Jacqueline Laffont-Terranova, and Didier Colin, 33–54. Namur: Presses Universitaires de Namur.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Questions posées par les rapports complexes entre l’instrument et son utilisateur. L’exemple des outils d’écriture.” In Enseigner les langues aux enfants en contexte scolaire. Diversité des approches et outils d’enseignement, ed. by Malory Leclère, and Jean-Paul Narcy-Combes, 87–103. Paris: Riveneuve.Google Scholar
Plane, Sylvie, Denis Alamargot, and Jean-Louis Lebrave. 2010. “Temporalité de l’écriture et rôle du texte produit dans l’activité rédactionnelle.” Langages 177: 7–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plane, Sylvie, Fabienne Rondelli, and Christine Vénérin. 2014. “Variations, fidélité, infidélité: l’écriture et la réécriture de discours rapportés par de jeunes scripteurs.” In Le discours rapporté: approches linguistiques et perspectives didactiques, ed. by Cécile Desoutter, and Caroline Mellet, 215–232. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rabatel, Alain. 2012. “Positions, positionnements et postures de l’énonciateur.” Travaux Neuchatelois de Linguistique 56: 23–42.Google Scholar
Richards, Todd, Virginia Berninger, and Michel Fayol. 2012. “The writing brain of normal child writers and children with writing disabilities: Generating ideas and transcribing them through the orthographic loop.” In Writing: A Mosaic of Perspectives and Views, ed. by Elena Grigorenko, Elisa Mambrino, and David Preiss, 85–105. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Rohman, Gordon, and Albert O. Wlecke. 1975. “Pre-writing: the construction and application of models for concept formation in writing”. Cooperative Research Project 2174. U.S. Office of Education. In The Development of Writing Abilities, ed. by James Britton, Antony Burgess, Nancy Martin, Alex McLeod, and Harold Rosen, 11–18. London: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
Roussey, Jean-Yves. 1999. Le contrôle de la rédaction de textes. Perspective cognitive. Dossier d’habilitation à diriger des recherches. Université d’Aix.Google Scholar
Schneider, Walter, and Richard M. Shiffrin. 1977. “Controlled and automatic human information processing: 1. Detection, search, and attention.” Psychological Review 84: 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommers, Nancy. 1980. “Revisions Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.” College Composition and Communication 31(4): 378–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tressler, Jacob C. 1912. “The efficiency of student correction of composition.” English Journal 1: 405–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Schneier, Joel
2021. Digital Articulation: Examining Text-Based Linguistic Performances in Mobile Communication Through Keystroke-Logging Analysis. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 3 DOI logo
Kroll, Jeri
2018. The creative writing doctoral thesis: insights from genetic criticism. New Writing 15:2 ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.