"When the First Voice You Hear is Not Your Own"

The article by Jacqueline Jones Royster was pretty confusing to me. I know her main emphasis was cross-boundary discourse and why it has failed and what can be done to make it possible. Subjectivity was her main tactic of making it possible, "subjectivity as defining value pays attention dynamically to context, ways of knowing, language abilities, and experience, and by doing so it has a consequent potential to deepen, broaden and enrich our interpretive views in dynamic ways as well" (611). One way to do that is by voicing our opinions and stories and being heard. "The call for action in cross-boundary exchange is to refine theory and practice so that they include voicing as a phenomenon that is constructed and expressed visually and orally, and as a phenomenon that has import also being a thing heard, perceived, and reconstructed" (612).

The three scenes used in the article depict different forms of 'subject'. They work together to show how we need to change our communication style to be better understood in more areas then our own community. Then, Royster goes on to explain strategies of doing so. One of the scenes shows the importance of voice. Being heard but not understood but it is sill better to speak. Too often we rely on others to do the talking for us, normally people in authoritative roles and/or experts. We can speak at any time and it may be perceived but how do we listen to others? How do we show others that we are engaged in what they are saying? Most times when I am in a conversation I can tell by the person's body language whether they care about what I am saying or not. It is one thing to speak and another to be heard, we have to find a way to do both.

Bizzell tells us "What We Need to Know about Writing...

I really liked this article because it merged two methods into one to create a valid and better understanding of the writing process. She did not choose one or the other and then bad talk them or say one was better, like some other articles we've read. Bizzelll chose to integrate the inner-directed mode of thinking and outer-directed to come to a conclusion on composition studies. Inner directed people are concerned with the thought process while writing and having thoughts before being in a social setting. The outer directed people thinking that thoughts come from social settings, people can influence them or you can take a stand. It was made clear that everyone comes to a consensus that it takes language to develop thoughts. This corresponds with the idea that each discourse community has their own language, ways of doing things and rules to follow. This is what makes them a group, the common characteristics they share, there are many discourse communities and people can belong to more than one. They just need to know what makes them apart of one or how to be part of one.

The inner directed theorists have a 4 stage model of developing language. 1. Individual, 2. Experience, 3. Society and the last one being the Writing situation. With an isomorphic model as Bizzell puts it, we can connect these stages with the outer directed thoughts and get the importance of what we need to know about writing. Inner directed theorists think that organizing ones thought can be taught, with their stage models. "Once students are capable of cognitively sophisticated thinking and writing, they are ready to tackle the problems of a particular writing situation" (390). They think that altering info to fir the thoughts of its reader is not bad because it does not change the point of the paper, it is just worded differently.

In contrast, the outer directed theorists think that social context help shape and condition thoughts. This sis something that cannot be taught it should be an innate habit. They think that no one can teach the rules of a discourse community because one needs to be part of it in order to truly understand it. The students are already placed in a discourse community of the school and the one they were born in and when writing a paper they may be unaware they are entering another one.

The article continues to go on and use Flower and Hayes model of the cognitive processes to show what they mean. Flower and Hayes are inner direct theorists. The fact that they use Protocol analysis as their tool to search is a problem with in itself because it is not accurate because writing is something that is not scientific. Flower and Hayes model lacks credibility because it "does not tell us how to proceed through the composing process, but only that in proceeding, there are certain sub processes, we must include if we want to compose successfully" (394). They answer the 'why' but not 'how' part of the process. To make student writers and see how they go about doing something they need to be gaining it through social context and we need to put them in situations where they are tested. This is how the outer detected models come into play. "What's missing here is the connection to social context afforded by recognition of the dialectical relationship between Thought and language. We can have thoughts for which we have no words, I think, but learning language, though it doesn't exactly teach us to thinking, teaches us what thoughts matter" (395) I agree with this quote because it is true and I know that through experience. Vygotsky's notion of he mind and how it works also suggest that we need the inner and outer models to understand it. The translating and planning aspect of Flower and Hayes model should not be separated, as they have it but connected and influenced by society. When readers are reading a piece of work they connect to it on a social level, they look at the experiences to relate to the character etc. The students cannot fake to be part of the discourse community as Bartholomae states it, they need to understand the discourse community before writing for them.

Flower and Hayes spoke about goals and they stem from knowledge, but the bigger question is however does the knowledge come from?...Answer: experience, society, others. The problem then is that poor writer cannot create goals because they lack knowledge on the discourse community they are writing for. Poor writers need to be taught the conventions of discourse communities. "if language using isn't rule governed in this sense, however, it still may be regular-that is, we may be able to group situations likely to share a number of language-using features. But to do this is to describe the conventions of discourse communities" (405).

To do this we need a "hidden curriculum" as Bizzell put it. We need to open their eyes to other communities without denying their own they already have. Once students are not apart of the community they are automatically perceived as wrong. For example, "The result for students who don't share the school's preferred world views is either failure or deracination" (407). Teachers need to focus on the real world and teach students the conventions of it.

Synthesis Of Bartholomae and Flower & Hayes

I synthesised Flower and Hayes into Bartholomae's ideas in my Bartholomae response. I found that they all seem to agree that writing is a process and what matters is not the final text but how the author got to that final product. It was stated in both articles that "If writing is a process, it is also a product,; and it is a product, and not the plan for writing that locates a writer on the page, that locates him in text and a style and the codes or conventions that make both of them readable" (631). This sentence to me, summed up the main points of the article. It incorporates the audience and the writers intentions. It also discusses the points made by Flower and Hayes with writing as a cognitive process and the goals the writer creates. The writer creates goals independently and privately, when the paper is finished and others read it is when it becomes public.

However, I feel that the writers disagree on where the invention aspect comes in during the process. Bartholomae feels that Flower and Hayes take invention out of the active writing process and that is a problem. His argument is due to that we see the product in text from the author not from his mind. We have no ideas as readers what the author's original ideas were and the process he went through to transform them from thoughts to text. Flower and Hayes Cognitive process demonstrates that the plans of the paper happen before the actually composing of it, I agree with that. One always has an idea or thought in mind of what they want to say but how to say it is what involves research and thinking. They argue on where the invention stage lies, for Flower and Hayes it is in the Task enviroment, for Batholomae it is in the active writing process.

Inventing the University Response

This article was written by David Bartholomae and to me, it was difficult to understand. The main bulk of it focused on student writers and how their work can be influenced if they act as part of the discourse community of their audience. It was stated that it is hard for students to take on the authoritative role in the papers and that is due to the fact that they may not feel like an expert on the issue they are talking about. However, Bartholomae says that they do not have to, they just have to act as they do. And in doing so, it will provide them the opportunity to explore this new discourse community. If they turn away all the thoughts of the outside communities and focus on the discourse community they are writing for, their papers will be so much better. First and foremost they will be aimed towards the people interested in the topic and it will be written int heir language. Bartholomae said a good place to start for this would be to create a commonplace.

A commonplace is "a statement that carries with it its own necessary elaboration" (pg. 626). This will give the audience something be be curious about and the writer will then have something to explain. "If writing is a process, it is also a product,; and it is a product, and not the plan for writing that locates a writer on the page, that locates him in text and a style and the codes or conventions that make both of them readable" (631). This sentence to me, summed up the main points of the article. It incorporates the audience and the writers intentions. It also discusses the points made by Flower and Hayes with writing as a cognitive process and the goals the writer creates. The writer creates goals independently and privately, when the paper is finished and others read it is when it becomes public.

One of the issues presented in the article was the problem of not feeling apart of the discourse community one is writing for. This happens a lot in school because of the assignments given. Teachers assign things that require students to be interested what those above them do but not actually be apart of it. So writing for the teacher requires them to be placed in an academic community and most times they just imitate what they see and know and don't really discover anything. By acting as a part of this discourse community they are taking in certain elements and this allows them to take o n the authoritative role that they need to make their paper memorable.

What we really think about when writing...

I want to say first and foremost that I really enjoyed the article by Linda Flower and John R. Hayes. I found it very interesting and very true. The article tackled the subject of what writers think about when composing and the decisions they make. They go on to first criticize the Pre-writing, Writing and writing process because it occurs in a linear form and it lacks the importance of time, decisions and other aspects that go on in the writer's head. "They model the growth of the written product, not the inner process of the person" (pg. 275). That is why a cognitive process is better according to them because it takes that and more into consideration. The cognitive process studies the mental processes that the writer is going through while composing the paper. The protocol analysis was the term they used to describe how it is better to test the writer while composing not after the fact. The 3 components of the cognitive process are Planning, Translating and Reviewing. The major elements are the task environment, long term memory and the writing processes.

Under the task environment are two sub elements: the rhetorical problem and the written text. In this time period the writer needs to decides what they are going to write about and the goals they are going to set for themselves. Also, once having the problem determined the writer needs to decide what to say about it. They usually have this thought in their mind and the hardest task is for them to get it on paper. The planning process the writer creates ideas, organizing them and sets the goals he wants to achieve in the paper. The goals have a chain reaction because they change thought out the writing process and that altars the paper. Under the translating state of mind the writer needs to decide how to put his thoughts into words that his readers will understand. The problem with this is they may be editing while translating and that could put a stop to the flow of ideas. While revising the writer can just read over his paper or make changes and add things.

The cognitive process is one that never ends. It is a continuous function that goes on during the writing process. There is no order to it. "It is much more common for writers to simply embed individual processes as needed-to call upon them as sub-routines to help carry out the task at hand" (pg. 284). That is very true and I can say that from experience. I do not use a set series of steps to compose a paper I take things as they come. The goals guide the paper and the thought process that will accompany them.

Addressed and Invoked Audience

The article from Bitch magazine really help me see the difference between an addressed and invoked audience. I see more what the article was saying by Ede and Lunsford about how they had issues with both forms and wanted to try and combine them. I think that is exactly what needs to be done because they work in correspondence with each other.

The addressed audience are those that buy the piece of rhetoric. The readers that share the same feelings as the authors. With Bitch magazine it was independent woman who had opinions on things and were able to express their feelings on certain issues. I think this was something that was not mentioned in class and maybe should have been. The writers and intial readers of the magazine are ones that have something to say about a certain topic. The addressed audience reveals the readers and who they are, what qualities or characteristics they have.

An invoked audience is the imaginary readers of the text. However, with Bitch magazine the authors provide feelings that the readers should share. With their use of words, adjectives and certain phrases that could relate to anyone and really hit some readers. They may be straightforward in their approach but it works for them to get their idea across.

I think that both of the audiences work together because whether you are an addressed or invoked audience the text is needed to decide. The text can be aimed at either one depending on the way it is looked at. The addressed may enjoy it, but it draws the attention of the invoked ones as well. It may create dissonance and with Bitch magazine I think that may be one of their intentions. The title of their magazine alone gives the reader a sense on what it will consist of.

Addressed or Invoked?

Audience, it is such a central part of reading and writing but it is also something that is hard to define. The article, "Audience Addressed/ Audience Invoked: The role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy" by Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford discussed audience and how it is hard to define for a reader or writer. The main two components was an addressed audience and an invoked audience.

An addressed audience is one that the reader or writer are trying to get their message out to. They are the ones whose opinion matters, the real people reading or listening to the piece. With an addressed audience the importance of the writer is not essential. A theory mentioned int he article was by Mitchell and Taylor and their central theme was the audience, what the writer did was irrelevant. That is the key difference between an addressed audience and an invoked one.

An invoked audience is created by the writer, he fictionalizes his audience and creates a role for them to play in his piece. This is harder than Ong portrayed it to be in the previous article. The reason for this lies in the fact that sometimes the reader may not catch on or play the role created for them, due to the pressure placed on the writer by the reader. "to acknowledge that readers own experiences, expectations and beliefs do play a central role in their reading of a text, and that the writer who does not consider the needs and interests of his audience risks loosing that audience" (pg. 88). There is a lot that the writer needs to take into consideration to gain the reader's attention.

All in all defining an audience is difficult to do because there are so many variations of what the term can mean. It "refers not just to the intended, actual or eventual readers of a discourse, but to all those whose image, ideas, or actions influence a writer during the process of composition" (pg. 92). An audience then depends on the writer and the reader because that is what pieces of texts are used for, to be read by someone.