Sharing Words

Written Communication Jan 1990

MARTIN NYSTRAND

Abstract

Understanding the effects of readers on writing development requires prior conceptualization of the relationship between writers and readers. Recently two major schools of thought have emerged concerning this relationship: social constructionism and social interactionism. Influenced by Saussure's structuralist concept of la langue as a set of language norms and Durkheim's concept of social fact, social constructionists emphasize normal, standard discourse: Their key principle is empirical consensus, their unit of analysis is the canon, and their level of social analysis is the community. By contrast, social interactionists, following Bakhtin, focus directly on situated, heteroglossic discourse and seek to characterize la parole, or language use, in useful terms: Their key principle is reciprocity between conversants, and their unit of analysis, as well as their level of social analysis, is the communicational dyad (writer-reader pairs; speaker-listener pairs). Because they focus on whole writer-reader communities, social constructionists deal with the effects of readers on writers in general terms, and they typically reify readers into “the Reader” when dealing with individual cases. By contrast, social interactionists, who concern themselves with describing actual, individual writers and readers, often in ethnographic studies, must articulate a principled analysis of writers and readers without analytic access recourse to group norms. This article first contrasts social constructionist and social interactionist approaches to the problem of discourse and then examines recent social interactionist studies concerning the effects of readers on writers' development, including investigations of word-segmentation skills, peer conferencing, and instructional discourse.

Journal: Written Communication
Published: 1990-01-01
DOI: 10.1177/0741088390007001001
Open Access: Closed
Topics: multilingual writers

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (6)

Smidt (2002)

Double Histories in Multivocal Classrooms

Written Communication
Wolfe (2002)

Marginal Pedagogy

Written Communication
BEAUFORT (2000)

Learning the Trade

Written Communication
CHIN (1994)

Redefining “Context” in Research on Writing

Written Communication
NYSTRAND et al. (1993)

Where did Composition Studies Come from?

Written Communication

Show all 6 →

WITTE (1992)

Context, Text, Intertext

Written Communication

Cites in this index (4)

Gere et al. (1985)

Talking About Writing: The Language of Writing Groups

Research in the Teaching of English
Hillocks (1982)

The Interaction of Instruction, Teacher Comment, and Revision in Teaching the C…

Research in the Teaching of English
Fox (1980)

Treatment of Writing Apprehension and Its Effects on Composition

Research in the Teaching of English
Beach (1979)

The Effects of Between-draft Teacher Evaluation Versus Student Self-evaluation …

Research in the Teaching of English

Also cites 10 works outside this index ↓

Bakhtin, M.

The formal method in literary scholarship: A critical introduction to sociological poetics

↗
Bissex, G.

Gnys at wrk: A child learns to write and read

↗
10.1080/10862968209547468

↗
10.3102/00346543058002119

↗
10.1177/002383097201500207

↗
10.2307/357458

↗
Nystrand, M.

What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse

↗
Nystrand, M.

The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers

↗
10.17763/haer.47.3.8840364413869005

↗
10.17763/haer.53.2.t6177w39817w2861

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 23 View in citation network →

Sharing Words

Abstract

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (6)

Cites in this index (4)

Related Articles