This essay situates the phenomenon of writing and learning in historical, pedagogical, and theoretical frameworks to isolate write-to-learn methods derived from the “British model” of language and learning. Writing as a mode of learning has maintained its status partly because of the rise of rhetoric and composition as a specialized field and because cross-curricular writing instruction has been offered as one answer to alleged “crises” of literate standards and competence in public and higher education. Generally, the author claims that typical accounts of writing as a unique tool for promoting learning ignore the complexities of cultures, classrooms, assignments, and other media that might equally facilitate learning. The author's reading of 35 studies of writing and learning is that they do not provide the long-sought empirical validation of writing as a mode of learning. He argues that this research is grounded in the same assumptions about language and learning as are common in the lore and practice of “writing across the curriculum” (WAC) and writing process approaches, and as a result, the issue of writing and learning has been framed wrongly. The confounds within this body of research are many of the cognitive and situational variables that would support a model of writing and learning that is compatible with the diverse discourses and experiences within and across institutions.

This essay presents a critical case study of how shifts in the style and genre of written communication both reflect and influence historical shifts in political consciousness and action. The field of study is the discourse of environmental advocacy. With increased public support for actions that would forestall environmental degradation, environmental politics has diversified. Formerly a resistance movement directed toward influencing large-scale governmental or industrial actions through the rhetoric of polemical dispute, environmentalism has evolved into several distinct approaches, including a globalist movement and a grass roots movement that share an interest in policy and procedure, the traditional topics of instrumental discourse. A new genre built upon this proactive attitude—the green how-to book—currently dominates the popular literature on environmental problem solving. Capitalizing on the document designs of technical communication, these manuals recommend courses of action ranging from fixing the Environmental Protection Agency to fixing the toilet; they are directed to audiences ranging from the President of the United States to the ordinary householder. They have in common an attempt to break the paralysis of fear associated with realizations about the scale of environmental damage. But—because the instrumental genre tends to obscure relations of agent, action, and effect—covert political agendas may pass unnoticed into the personalist politics of the new literature.

The almost exclusive reliance on evidence developed from documentary analyses, specifically analyses of textbooks, in composition historiography has resulted in an agonistic, heroes-and-villains image of the history of writing instruction, whereby modern composition scholars have defined themselves in terms of their opposition to what has come to be called “current-traditional rhetoric.” This article promotes the use of oral evidence in composition historiography to guard against overgeneralization and simplistic reduction of composition history to binary oppositions. Oral interviews also can serve as a way of collecting information that would otherwise be lost, of exploring the thoughts, motivations, feelings, and values of informants, and of giving voice to those marginalized politically, socially, and professionally. This article also defends oral data against positivistic attacks on its reliability as evidence and argues that the evidentiary value of any piece of historical data depends not on some abstract ranking of different kinds of evidence but on the historian's understanding of the rhetorical context informing the production of that data.

The evolution of page design to improve the readability of technical writing can be traced to improvements in typography and also to the influence of Peter Ramus. Ramus's logic used bracketed outlines to show the relationships among ideas within larger concepts. Used by legal writers and Puritan theologians to analyze concepts, Ramist method was also used by English physicians who sought to create medical texts that could be easily read and remembered by students and practitioners. Texts that used Ramist method illustrate their writers' awareness of the importance of making information visually accessible by use of white space, headings that reveal hierarchies of ideas, and bracketed dichotomies and partitions to reveal content for selective reading.

Through the use of case study portraits, this article examines naturally occurring one-to-one writing conference conversations between a ninth-grade English teacher and three students in his class. Suggesting a broadened model of effective writing conference instruction, the article considers composing processes that appear to be privileged in the conference context when different students are learning to write. The focus is on the dialogic nature of markedly contrasting conversations, demonstrating that while dialogue wears many guises and while the give and take between teacher and student can be fleeting and “forgettable,” the conversational context contributes to a deliberative process critical to the process of composing. Methodology for the research on which this article is based drew on ethnographic techniques combined with discourse analysis of writing conference conversation.

This study examined the effects of computer network technologies on teacher-student and student-student interactions in a writing course emphasizing multiple drafts and collaboration. Two sections used traditional modes of communication (face-to-face, paper, and phone); two other sections, in addition to using traditional modes, used electronic modes (electronic mail, bulletin boards, and so on). Patterns of social interaction were measured at two times: 6 weeks into the semester and at the end of the semester. Results indicate that teachers in the networked sections interacted more with their students than did teachers in the regular sections. In addition, it was found that teachers communicated more electronically with less able students than with more able students and that less able students communicated more electronically with other students.

In the first three medical reports on AIDS which were published in 1981 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the writers' primary rhetorical agenda was to argue that a new medical discovery had been made. A secondary agenda was to offer etiological explanations for the new problem. To establish the new disease entity as deserving serious attention, the writers built a sense of mystery by confronting established medical knowledge about immunodeficiency and emphasizing the inability of modern medicine to diagnose and treat the problem. When they explained the phenomenon in etiological terms, rather than confronting the disciplinary matrix, the writers relied on established medical knowledge of infection rates in homosexual males as well as prevailing social views about the dangerous nature of male homosexual activity; consequently, they were able to imply that nothing was mysterious or surprising about immunodeficiency in homosexual males.

The fields of social cognition and writing have both evolved significantly from their infancy in the 1960s. Yet by 1960, each field had already suffered from years of neglect; a social-cognitive framework was initially published in the 1930s (Mead, 1934), while audience awareness in speaking and writing was first addressed by Aristotle (Cooper, 1932). During the 1970s, cognitive-developmentalists interested in audience awareness in writing found Piaget's (1926) description of the egocentrism displayed by children in various communicative tasks particularly appealing. The combined acceptance by these writing researchers of the concepts of egocentrism and decentration led to a growing concern for audience awareness and adaptation in written communication. However, many researchers noted the limitations of cognitively based audience heuristics and the conflicting evidence regarding egocentrism. Support for their views on writing was found in the new field of social cognition and writing. Of the four theoretical positions currently advanced in the field, Rubin's (1984) multidimensional proposal dominates the research. Although the actual studies generated have been few, numerous theoretical and methodological problems already plague this area of research. Nonetheless, the emerging social-cognitive model of writing presents implications for research and teaching not available under traditional perspectives.

Using a single-subjects-with-replicates design, this study investigated conference influence on first graders' knowledge about revision as well as revision activity. Sixteen children participated in group writing conferences with a teacher, in a natural classroom setting, every other week from February through June. Data from three baseline points and seven conference points were summarized. At conference data collection points, students wrote, conferred in groups with a teacher, were interviewed about potential revisions, and revised work in progress. At baseline points, the same events occurred, but there were no conferences. Two main variables were used to evaluate knowledge of the revision process: number of spots suggested for revision and average specificity of suggested changes. The main variable for actual revision activity was total number of revisions made. Final drafts were also rated for quality. Conferences did influence revision knowledge and revision activity for many children. However, the extent of conference influence was mediated by certain entry level student characteristics. Generally, the most positive effects occurred for students who began with the least amount of knowledge about revision, who were initially doing the least amount of revision, and who were initially writing pieces judged among the lowest in quality.

Occasional dissent notwithstanding, “expository” prose—usually conceived as depersonalized and decontextualized—continues to be the main focus of most writing instruction at the secondary and college levels. This article critically examines the opposition of objectified exposition and personal narrative posited by rhetorical tradition and maintained by most composition texts and syllabi today. The liveliness of recent cross-disciplinary discussions regarding the narrative as a uniquely rich mode of thought and discourse contrasts rather sharply with the negative and often impoverished assumptions about storied prose held by most composition theorists and teachers. Unsupported by empirical evidence, such assumptions reflect a cultural bias that prefers abstractions to stories and fails to grasp their dynamic interplay. Where writing instruction is concerned, narrative and exposition are best perceived as poles of a dialectic, with personal experience informing one's interest in abstract knowledge beyond the self, the understanding self becoming enlarged as it “takes in” what is “out there.” The best thinking and writing, it is argued, are at once personal and public, both infused with private meaning and focused upon the world beyond the self.

This article discusses the recommendations made by compositionists to import the findings of linguistics into composition instruction during the middle years of the twentieth century. The article classifies these recommendations for the uses of linguistics into three kinds: (1) improvement of instruction in grammar and usage; (2) enhancement of students' syntactic and stylistic repertoires; and (3) an aid to invention. Utilizing this history, the article argues that while linguistics can offer teachers of composition some assistance in matters that are proper to linguistic investigation and analysis, the noncontextual orientation of modern linguistics renders it insufficient as a comprehensive source of theoretical or practical assistance in composition instruction.

The research on the cognitive processes in writing has led to models of the writing process such as that of Flower and Hayes. The work underlying these models has been carried out on relatively unconstrained writing genres. The purpose of this study was to investigate the types of processes used by journalistic writers when producing texts of varying constraints. A three tier methodology was used to offset certain methodological difficulties. Journalism students wrote either a news story or an editorial under either a pausal procedure, a pausal interview, or a protocol. It was found that news story writers paused more often and carried out more activities per writing session than did editorial writers suggesting greater monitoring activity by news story writers. In addition, news story writers were extensively concerned with accuracy and appeared to use a preorganized structure to guide writing and a priorities list to determine order of mention. Editorial writers paused less often and somewhat longer indicating a more open ended task. They appeared to adopt one of two strategies—treat the editorial as a news story with an opinion paragraph or search for a personal viewpoint. The results indicated that the Flower and Hayes model is applicable in a limited manner to journalistic writing.

Each year a large number of students enter American higher education unprepared for the reading and writing tasks they encounter. Labeled “remedial,”“nontraditional,”“developmental,”“underprepared,”“nonmainstream,” these students take special courses and participate in special programs designed to qualify them to do academic work. Yet, we do not know very much about what it is that cognitively and socially defines such students as remedial. This article describes a research project on remediation at the community college, state college, and university levels designed to provide such information. We focus on a piece of writing produced by a student in an urban community college, examining it in the context of the student's past experiences with schooling, her ideas about reading and writing, the literacy instruction she was receiving, and her plans and goals for the future. Our analyses suggest that the student's writing, though flawed according to many standards, demonstrates a fundamental social and psychological reality about discourse—how human beings continually appropriate each other's language to establish group membership, to grow, and to define themselves in new ways.

Texts reflect the conditions under which they are produced. This means that the writing process can favor or counteract a comprehensible text. In this article, problems of law text comprehensibility are related to the legislative writing process. The drafting of three pieces of Swedish consumer legislation was observed at different stages, and the results of this study are summarized and analyzed in relation to rhetorical and sociolinguistic theories of writing. Law writing can roughly be described by a rhetorical model as regards the role of the main phases in the process. It is, however, found to be less reader-oriented and more oriented toward the speech community than the rhetorical model prescribes.

In this decade, writing researchers have shown increasing interest in the social aspects of written communication. This interest has largely been stimulated by interest in writing-across-the-curriculum programs and dialogue journal keeping, as well as such pressing issues as the relationships of process to text and to the social contexts of writing, and the problem of genre. This article outlines a social-interactive model of written communication, highlighting the writer's role in negotiations with readers in the medium of text. Formalist theories of text meaning (meaning is in the text) and idealist theories of meaning (meaning in the reader) are reviewed and challenged. In social-interactive theories of discourse, which are proposed as an alternative to formalist and idealist theories, meaning is said to be a social construct negotiated by writer and reader through the medium of text, which uniquely configures their respective purposes. In the process of communicating, writers and readers may be said to make various “moves,” which achieve progressive and sequential “states” of understanding between them. Writers make three essential kinds of moves: They (1) initiate and (2) sustain written discourse, which they accomplish by means of (3) text elaboration. The rules for writers' moves are spelled out in a fundamental axiom and seven corollaries.

Introspection suggests that both writers and readers experience auditory imagery of intonation, accents, and hesitations. The suggestion here is that certain important aspects of this “covert prosody” of written language are reflected in punctuation. In order to study systematically the degree to which punctuation reflects the covert prosody of written language, one would like to find independent ways of uncovering that prosody. Two such ways are explored here: reading aloud and “repunctuating” (inserting punctuation in passages from which the author's punctuation has been removed). The article focuses especially on the relation between “punctuation units” (stretches of language between punctuation marks) and the “intonation units” of speech, and the variations in this relation that are found among different authors and different styles. It explores the degree to which different pieces of writing are prosodically spokenlike, and the degree to which they capture the prosodic imagery of ordinary readers. “Close” and “open” punctuation are discussed, as are selected grammatical sites at which there is a discrepancy between punctuation and prosody. It is suggested that an awareness of prosodic imagery is an important ingredient of “good writing.”

In their freshman year in college, Puerto Rican students take composition courses in both Spanish and English. Although the rhetorical structure of the final product, the composition, may respond to national writing styles in the two languages, studies show the composition process to be similar. Writing instructors in either language find similar problems in student compositions, regardless of the language code used. One of the difficulties students have in both languages is blocking, or apprehension about writing. Although some aspects of the composition process may be universal, we assumed that in bilingual writers the source of writing block depended on the language used. This article presents the results of a questionnaire designed to determine the sources of bilingual students' apprehension in writing by considering three groups of bilingual writers: graduate students in English, freshman English composition students, and freshman Spanish composition students. The results suggest some insights on the nature of blocking in a native language (Spanish) and a second language (English), which may then lead to ways of helping bilingual students to overcome blocking.

Literary criticism of the last decade has developed a new emphasis: the study of a work's reader alongside the more traditional study of literary texts. Some critics have suggested that literary works imply and project an audience. Drawing upon this body of criticism, as well as upon social commentary and advertising theory, this article attempts to demonstrate how composition textbook advertisements suggest, project, and perhaps even create an audience. Examining a series of composition textbook advertisements from 1982 to 1987 in addition to a number of works of art, this article proposes four different audience-related elements of the ad-object: context (the extrinsic circumstances that the advertisement connotes); genre (the kind of text or object the advertisement masquerades as); borrowings (the sources that the ad-object draws upon); and reflexivity (the image of the viewer mirrored by the advertisement). Each of these, while not entirely discrete, serves to imply and project certain features of the viewing audience. The article's conclusion speculates on the nature of this audience projected by the contemporary composition textbook ad and how this image is important to us as consumers of the ads and purveyors of the products they promote.

College freshmen (75 men and 75 women) at Indiana University completed a questionnaire designed to elicit their reasoning about, and attitudes toward, plagiarism. Students wrote their own explanations of why it is wrong to plagiarize, rated five standard explanations that were based on different ethical orientations, and responded to a series of statements about the seriousness and consequences of plagiarizing. Analyses revealed that these students took the matter of plagiarism rather seriously, and that they tended to construe plagiarism in terms of three major issues: fairness to authors and other students, the responsibility of students to do independent work, and respect for ownership rights.

Explaining difficult concepts to lay readers is an important discursive goal, and yet frequently the quality of explanatory writing is poor. One reason for this poor quality is that the discursive form itself is not well understood. Some studies have identified textual features of effective explanations; however, theoretical characterizations of explanatory discourse are either unnecessarily narrow or overly general. Consequently, this essay offers a new theory of explanatory discourse that is intended to guide analyses of and stimulate improvements in explanations designed for mass audiences. The theory defines explanatory discourse in terms of a particular goal; promoting understanding for lay readers of some phenomenon. This goal is distinguished from those of promoting awareness of new information, proving a claim, or encouraging agreement with a claim. The utility of the theory is demonstrated by showing how it (1) identifies those research literatures most relevant to improving the quality of written explanations, (2) organizes existing findings on explanatory effectiveness in a way that resolves controversies in the literature, and (3) suggests principles for pedagogy pertaining to explanatory writing.

Cognitive social psychologists have examined the characteristics of information that make it likely to be incorporated into processes of memory, judgment, decision making, and inference. The “vividness” of information is the degree to which it is emotionally engaging, concrete, imagery producing and proximate. Vivid information is most likely to be used in these cognitive processes and also seems to satisfy most requirements for newsworthiness. Journalism practice systematically selects for vivid information, and journalism writing enhances or creates such vividness. It can be argued, however, that vivid information may not be the best information for use in decision making and inference drawing and that overreliance on it can lead to errors of perception and judgment. An example is the colorful but irrelevant personal anecdote. Journalism may select only what is vivid—concrete and personal events, conflict, sensation, and “bad news”—rather than what is truly informative, thereby institutionalizing errors of perception and inference in newswork.

The development of technical manuals requires coordination of the expertise in the subject area and in writing and design skills as well as detailed knowledge of the audience and job context. In this research we examined the production process of five publication houses in an attempt to determine how or if these requirements for expertise are being met. A further goal was to determine what strategies in the production process may facilitate or detract from the production of effective documentation. Writers, managers, and illustrators were interviewed at each site. The work flow in developing a manual is described. Data on the use of specifications and guidelines, the revision process including quality control, validation and verification, are presented. The skills and duties of writers, illustrators, and government representatives are presented. Finally, the production process for technical manuals is interpreted in terms of a process model of writing and strategies for improving the quality of documentation is discussed.

This essay constructs frameworks for understanding how organizations may function as rhetorical contexts. Initially, traditional and modern approaches to rhetorical context are compared and conclusions are drawn about where organizations, as a form of context, may fit within each. Then two approaches to organizational theory that have implications for the study and practice of writing are elaborated.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of teacher training in the NWP model on student writing. The sample consisted of 383 students, in junior and senior high school at the time of the study, with ten essays each gathered over three years. Teachers responded to a questionnaire of practices in teaching composition. Results favored the treatment group at the junior high level. The highest mean score was achieved by senior high students of trained teachers. Statistically significant differences were found between trained and nontrained teachers for four instructional practices and for the amount of interaction with other professionals.

Speech that is authentically oral tends to avoid language that is abstract and conceptual in favor of “down to earth” language. Literacy tends to encourage the former at the expense of the latter. Our educational system starting at the primary level should encourage the latter even while teaching habits of reading and writing. This can be done by including oral recitation in the curriculum and in particular recitation of popular poetry accompanied by music, dance, and also memorization. The modern media, despite their use of electronic sound and image, tend to overuse conceptual language to disguise the hard meaning of what is being communicated. The management of the public relations of the shuttle disaster offered a striking illustration of this habit.

Two hypotheses are outlined about the reasons for obscurity in expository writing. Neither accounts adequately for the general results of an exploratory study of the writing of postgraduates nor for the individual cases I present by way of illustration. A crucial factor, I suggest, is a person's implicit model of expository writing. Many of our subjects assume that the purpose of technical writing is to compress thought. I argue, on the contrary, that clarity is achieved through expansion.

A group of graduate students in English and language education were given a series of instructor-designed and self-designed reading and writing tasks. They wrote formal papers in response to these tasks and kept retrospective journals describing their reading and writing strategies. The study looks at the nature of introspective accounts and the usefulness of such accounts in studies of the composing process. Several writing tasks are described and analyzed, and three brief case studies are presented. The study concludes that retrospective journal accounts are a rich source of information because they permit consideration of the complex context within which composing occurs.

This study explored the collaborative writing processes of a group of computer software company executives. In particular, the study focused on the year-long process that led to the writing of a vital company document. Research methods used included participant/observations, open-ended interviews, and Discourse-Based Interviews. A detailed analysis of the executive collaborative process posits a model that describes the reciprocal relationship between writing and the organizational context. The study shows the following: (1) how the organizational context influences (a) writers' conceptions of their rhetorical situations, and (b) their collaborative writing behavior; and (2) how the rhetorical activities influence the structure of the organization.

We have extended the measurement of content complexity to a practical level by developing a model for evaluating a particularly complex body of information: the federal income tax laws. United States tax law has been seriously criticized as being overly complex, and the capital gain or loss tax preference significantly contributes to this complexity. By developing and applying a content analysis measurement model, we have determined that over 15% of the tax law's complexity is attributable to the capital gain and loss preference and that this preference affects 65% of all income tax sections. The consequences of this complexity are currently an unresearched area. The findings confirm the hypothesis that the capital gain and loss preference substantially complicates the income tax law in both absolute and relative terms.

That written language is not an image of oral language can be deduced from functions; it has an independent role in linguistic communication. As an independent system of signs, written language mediates between its producers, recipients, and reality. The fact that various written languages in their development have made use of essential principles of oral language can be attributed to methodological economy. In this respect the stages of “phonetization” are no doubt remarkable events in the history of written and oral language. They are of fundamental importance for the further development of both. Nevertheless phonetization in no way inherently defines written language. The effects of written language and its motivation are investigated. Taking historical determination as a basis, both of them lead from the contemporary, manifold interrelations between oral and written language to the search for the original causes and conditions for the emergence of written language. The emergence of written language results from social needs and the individual needs these include, which are in turn conditioned by concrete historical circumstances.

Many researchers in composition instruction assume that free and journal writing exclusively and necessarily produce “meaningful” writing. This is not substantiated in their limited case study research, or in the research of anyone else. We need to establish a precise definition of “meaningful” writing, determine its place in the curriculum, and determine better means of designing instruction that produces writing that is both meaningful and of high quality. The meta-analysis of Hillocks (1984) indicates that structured composition assignments produce better writing than nondirectional writing experiences. This article explores the reasons for this, and establishes hypotheses based on these reasons for developing a theory of composition instruction. The hypotheses support a need for structured instruction, rather than student-generated direction.

At least seven types of summaries have emerged in common usage, especially during the past 250 years. They may be classified as either sequential summaries that retain the original order in which information was presented or synthesizing summaries that alter this sequence to achieve specific objectives. Each type of summary developed in response to challenges facing professions, government, business, and ordinary citizens-all of whom have sought to absorb increasing quantities of information being generated in a society that is becoming more complex. This taxonomy offers a definition and brief history for each of the seven techniques, describes the growth of corporations or other organizations that can be considered leading practitioners, and comments on the potential continuing role for each type of summary. The article also focuses on several contemporary issues that will affect future research, classroom writing instruction, and information management in modern computerized offices.

In sentences with validity markers in the syntactic subject and adjacent positions, the frequent correspondence between syntactic subject and sentence topic in English sentences is broken. Because this correspondence has been shown to have substantial and positive effects upon readers' processing of and perceptions about texts, breaking the correspondence might have significant negative effects on readers. This study begins to explore how such syntactic subjects affect readers. It shows that readers recall such subjects very poorly, but it also suggests that in order to discover more precisely how readers represent such subjects in memory, new and rich models of language and of possible domains in texts will be needed.

Two studies based on an information theory model of reader enjoyment investigated the role of syntactic and semantic unpredictability in determining readers' evaluations of journalistic prose. In each study, reader enjoyment ratings for a set of articles reporting a single news event were compared with cloze procedure results in which function-word and content-word responses were analyzed separately using entropy and cloze scoring techniques. Both studies revealed a statistically significant correlation between function-word predictability and reader enjoyment. In addition, a strong correlation between content-word unpredictability and reader enjoyment in one study supported the notion that readers prefer texts that are characterized by a high degree of semantic unpredictability.

Readers and evaluators of children's writing still fall back on deficit explanations; papers are read for signs of what they lack rather than signs of growth. Presented here is a model that predicts how such growth may occur as a logical outcome of language acquisition. Drawing on research done in the past, the article provides a list of the kinds of language learning underway in the elementary school years and suggests that teachers may use this list to anticipate where and how such learning will influence the writing processes of children. Included in the list are sentence syntax, spelling conventions, and discourse grammars, all of which seem to be learned by “creative construction” (hypothesis building and refinement) and, to some extent, memorization. The article argues that children's writing performance is likely to suffer on one or more writing dimensions as the writer selectively attends to other dimensions of the task. For evaluators and teachers there are implications for feedback, for individual agendas, for revision, and for the kinds of conclusions one may draw from the examination of written products.

The social sciences and humanities bring different attitudes and methods to the problem of meaning. From the “scientismic” point of view, meaning is quantifiable and is largely what Tulving called “verbal” knowledge. The scientismic view, however, is flawed in three ways: its failure to account adequately for “episodic” knowledge, to view language as an event, and to understand modes. The literarist view of meaning is equally flawed. However, the scientismists have most of the political power; hence, the literarists are losing the battle for their set of values and their versions of literacy. A realignment of literary studies under the aegis of rhetoric is necessary.

Rubin, Piché, Michlin, and Johnson (1984) recently presented data allegedly demonstrating a substantial relationship between social-cognitive ability and narrative writing skill. Certain theoretical and statistical considerations led us to suspect that the claimed relationship was not actually present in the data reported by Rubin et al. Consequently, two empirical studies were conducted to test for the hypothesized relationship between social-cognitive ability and narrative writing skill, one study reanalyzing data reported by Rubin et al. and the second analyzing original data. The results of the two studies indicate no relationship between social-cognitive ability and rated quality of narrative essays. These findings are discussed in terms of a theoretical model of the relationships among cognitive abilities, discourse aims, and discourse models.

Most rhetorical history has concerned itself with the theory of argumentation discourse as it developed from classical to modern times. This article traces a parallel but much less investigated strand of rhetorical history: the theory and practice of explanation. The slow growth of a body of knowledge about how information could best be communicated without necessary reference to overt persuasion is followed from Henry Day's Art of Rhetoric through contemporary explanatory rhetoric.

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.

Most rhetorical history has concerned itself with the theory of argumentative discourse as it developed from classical to modern times. This essay traces a parallel but much less investigated strand of rhetorical history: the theory and practice of explanation. The slow growth of a body of knowledge about how information could best be communicated without necessary reference to overt persuasion is followed from Aristotle's Rhetoric through the beginnings of a theory of written discourse in the American nineteenth century. A later continuation of this essay will trace explanatory rhetoric into modern times.

Three studies investigated the knowledge gained by students, ranging from grade 3 to graduate level, from exposure to single examples of literary types. Types were suspense fiction, the journalistic restaurant review, and an invented fictional genre. Students of all ages showed evidence of some pick up of rhetorical knowledge, although of limited complexity. The learning process involved is distinguished from that involved in more gradual learning from exposure to literary models.