Convention from Below

Written Communication Jul 2002

Lars Sigfred Evensen Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Abstract

How should the relationship between immediate interaction and verbal convention be understood? The present article argues that dialogism transcends the distinction between interactionist and constructionist social theories of written communication, as presented by Nystrand and colleagues. The theoretical argument is illustrated by a study of one writer who is struggling to learn argumentative writing. In analyzing this writer’s development, the focus is on grounding, specifically, the interplay between foregrounded and backgrounded parts of discourse. The results illustrate that appropriation of conventional resources for grounding is more creative and dyadically contextualized than constructionist theories may invite us to think. Simultaneously, appropriation draws on conventional communicative resources in ways that are hard to explain within interactionist theories. A dialogical model is presented to show that the Bakhtinian “double dialogue” of discourse meets in the “diatope”—that multidimensional (ecological) point of co-constitution where interaction and construction merge into one unified perspective.

Journal: Written Communication
Published: 2002-07-01
DOI: 10.1177/074108802237750
Open Access: Closed
Topics: multimodality

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

Ongstad (2002)

Positioning Early Research on Writing in Norway

Written Communication
Smidt (2002)

Double Histories in Multivocal Classrooms

Written Communication

Cites in this index (4)

Ongstad (2002)

Positioning Early Research on Writing in Norway

Written Communication
Smidt (2002)

Double Histories in Multivocal Classrooms

Written Communication
NYSTRAND et al. (1993)

Where did Composition Studies Come from?

Written Communication
NYSTRAND (1989)

A Social-Interactive Model of Writing

Written Communication

Also cites 15 works outside this index ↓

10.1080/00393278808587986

↗
Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Ed. and Trans.). Minneapolis: University of…

↗
10.1287/orsc.2.1.40

↗
Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in d…

↗
Clark, H. C. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

↗
10.3102/00028312026002143

↗
Fleischman, S. (1985). Discourse functions of tense-aspect oppositions in narrative: Toward a theory of groun…

↗
Graumann, C. F. (1989). Perspective setting and taking in verbal interaction. In R. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann…

↗
Holquist, M. (1990). Introduction: The architectonics of answerability. In M. Holquist & V. Liapunov (Eds.), …

↗
Hopper, P. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In T. Givon (Ed.), Discourse and syntax: Syntax and…

↗
Hopper, P. (Ed.). (1982). Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Be…

↗
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam…

↗
10.1080/00335638409383686

↗
Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and reade…

↗
Reinhart, T. (1984). Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative text. Linguis…

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 11 View in citation network →