CCR 691: Bazerman and Prior (2003) *What Writing Does and How It Does It*

Bazerman, Charles and Prior, Paul (Eds.). (2003). What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Executive Summary:

For this edited collection, Bazerman and Prior suggest in their introduction that discourse analysis lends itself not only to analyzing verbal discourse in linguistics and sociolinguistics, but also to research in rhetoric, composition, literary studies, and communication studies (among other disciplines). Thus, the authors attempt to combine practices from each of these fields of inquiry to catalog various research methods for scholars interested in textual analysis. They include discussions such as analysis of content, narrative works, intertextuality, code-switching, media texts, textual histories, conversation as well as the analysis of various linguistic and rhetorical features among these practices of analysis. Most chapters provide definitions, methods, methodologies, a review of literature, examples of applied analysis, practice prompts, and suggestions for further reading.

A number of assumptions ground their research methods: (a) that authoring texts is a complex cultural activity not only influenced by the author and his/her social contexts and experiences, but also other authors, other texts, genres, modes of communication, etc. (4); (b) that texts are written, visual, and verbal modes of communication that are produced through various mediums and interfaces including pen, paper, voice, conversation, thoughts, word processing tools, video, digital interfaces, and even sticks, knives, trees, and dirt (6-7); (c) that writing is a “complex literate activity that includes reading and writing, feeling and thinking, speaking and listening, observing and acting” (7); and, lastly, (d) that critical inquiry of texts is most assessable when analysts suspend judgment of what is normal and instead view all texts as being “strange objects worthy of close analytic attention” (7-8).

Quotable Quotes:

· “To understand writing, we need to explore the practices that people engage in to produce texts as well as the ways that writing practices gain their meanings and functions as dynamic elements o specific cultural settings” (2).

· What to consider when analyzing texts: “how texts direct people’s attention to various objects and concerns; how different linguistic, rhetorical, and graphic resources make possible the creation of meaning; how texts depend on and use other texts; how texts influence people’s beliefs and actions; how people learn to recognize, read, and produce genres (texts of certain types); how people actually go about producing texts; and how social systems of activity depend on and promote particular kinds of texts” (3).

An overview of chapters 1-7:

· In “Content Analysis: What texts Talk About” (13-32), Thomas Huckin defines content analysis as “the identifying, quantifying, and analyzing of specific words, phrases, concepts, or other observable semantic data in a text or body of texts with the aim of uncovering some underlying thematic or rhetorical pattern running through these texts” (14). Huckin also outlines the methodological procedures of content analysis (16-19), provides real examples of research using this approach (19-26), and assesses the approach for its criticisms and virtues (26-28).

· In “Poetics and Narrativity: How Texts Tell Stories” (33-56), Phillip Eubanks argues that the structure and function of language using narrative, metaphor, and metonymy have significant social power since these forms subconsciously shape cultural thinking and practices. Eubanks also suggests that poetic and narrative forms not only shape the writing of fiction, but also argumentative and scientific research practices. To exemplify the narrative approach, for instance, Eubanks describes his method of analyzing story-telling features in texts written by Bill gates, noting how he (Eubanks) selected texts, analyzed them, categorized his analyses, and applied narrative and rhetorical theory to make an argument about the functions of social thinking and argumentative processes (36-42). After exemplifying metaphor (42-50) and other figures like metonymy (50-52), Eubanks concludes that “studies of narrative, metaphor, and other figures are not just concurrent or collocated but inherently connected” (53).

· In “Linguistic Discourse Analysis: How the Language in Texts Works” (57-82), Ellen Barton views discourse analysis as “a method for analyzing the ways that specific features of language contribute to the interpretation of texts in their various contexts” (57). Barton explains how linguists—following various methods including ethnography of communication, interactive sociolinguistics, genre analysis, systemic linguistics, and critical discourse analysis—work to explore the ways language is structured in given contexts, analyzing the function (purpose and effects) of these structures. The chapter is divided into sections discussing and exemplifying discourse analysis used in (a) the analysis of oral-written language in linguistics and composition studies (62-65); and, (b) rich feature analysis (e.g. analyzing awkward sentences) (65-74).

· In “Intertextuality: How Texts Rely on Other Texts” (83-96), Charles Bazerman outlines terms and practices for research methods analyzing how texts rely on other texts in making meaning and posits that “intertextaulity is not just a matter of which other texts you refer to, but how you use them, what you use them for, and ultimately how you position yourself as a writer to them to make your own statement” (94). Methodologically speaking, he suggests that you (as researcher of intertextuality) should identify “why you are engaged,” “what questions you hope to answer,” “the specific texts you want to examine,” and “the traces of other texts that you wish to consider,” and then work to “[make] observations and interpretations,” “look for more subtle clues,” “make a list” and “look for a pattern” (91-92).

· In “Code-Switching and Second Language Writing: How Multiple Codes Are Combined in a Text” (97-122), Marcia Z. Buell illustrates how “Code-switching offers particularly rich insights for examination of second- (multi-) language or dialect speakers and writers who must not only negotiate across recognizably distinct languages or language variants, but also must worked through the complexity attached to learning and suing an unfamiliar set of codes” (98). Buell offers an extensive example where she analyzes a student’s essay for code-switching using not only contrastive analysis and interlanguage theory, but also using contrastive rhetoric (106-117).

· In “The Multiple Media of Texts: How Onscreen and Paper Texts Incorporate Words, Images, and Other Media” (123-166), Anne Frances Wysocki unpacks definitions of basic concepts used for analyzing various media texts, including the underlying assumptions for analyzing media texts (123-126), the “categories and terminology to use in analysis” of media texts (126-137), and a suggested “approach for analyzing the visual aspects of a text” (137-140).

· In “Tracing Process: How Texts Come Into Being” (167-200), Paul Prior discusses how and why researchers study writing processes. He defines how major concepts (like inscription, composing, text, and authorship) influence writing as practice. Methods for analysis are catalogued and include practices for “collecting and keeping track of texts,” “intertextual analysis,” “eliciting writers’ accounts,” “observation of writing,” and “integrating data from multiple sources” (172-196). Prior suggests that using multiple methods tracing textual histories (such as “intertextual analysis, participant accounts, and observation of activity” 197) will help researchers carefully consider and analyze how authorship and social contexts influence the composition of texts.

Some thoughts: see your notes saved as .doc

CCR 601: Matsuda (2003) "Publishing as a Graduate Student"

Matsuda, Paul Kei. (2003). “Coming to Voice: Publishing as a Graduate Student.” In C. Pearson and S. Vandrick (Eds.) In Writing for Scholarly Publication: Behind the Scenes in Language Education (39-51). New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.

In this chapter, Matsuda works to challenge some of the assumptions that many established academics and graduate students likely share: that academic publication is merely a means of producing intellectual capital; that graduate students are not established enough or well read enough in their fields to publish; and that the purpose of publication is merely because that’s what scholars do (hence, publishing for personal and institutional recognition, not the advancement of a discipline).

He shares a narrative of the experiences, perceptions, and reservations he remembers from graduate school and first publishing experiences, these imaginably being what many graduate students experience: the terror of finding enough to say to fill a frightening 20 pages; the difficulty of limited all that has to be said in only 20 pages; the amount of reading we imagine we need to do in order to find a topic worth writing about; the realization that we don’t quite understand what would be considered a worthy contribution to the field; the hardship of gaining perspective about the scope of an extremely vast field and then coping with the amount of reading it will take to gain that perspective; the battle to find one’s “niche” and the worry that we’ll be judged based on how our identities influence our research interests; the uncertainty of whether or not we know enough about the arguments for and against a certain topic so as to anticipate possible objections to our claims and analyses; the potentially troublesome task of becoming aware of who our audience is, who our audience should be, and how we should rhetorically approach arguing for that audience; and the hesitance we have in being confident in our ability to theoretically contribute to our fields.

His narrative also sheds light on how such a widely recognized and published scholar in the field became so widely recognized and published. I was impressed (but not shocked) to learn of Matsuda’s early academic successes. Before entering graduate school, he had published in his university newspaper, tutored ESL for four years, contributed to the curriculum (by way of short essays) of his university’s tutoring practicum, and mastered writing in English as a nonnative speaker through taking numerous writing-intensive courses. Besides his undergraduate preparations, Matsuda also set the motions early on in his grad courses for scholarly publication: he approached his professor about writing for publication during his first semester of his master’s program; he sought, determinedly, to seek out as much knowledge about his field by reading as much as possible; and he joined academic conversations by becoming involved with online groups in his profession. He attributes much of his understanding of the discipline that he gained in graduate school, in fact, to TESL-L, an email discussion forum:

[T]he interactive nature of the list helped me become more keenly aware of my audience and their expectations as well as my own construction of a discursive self in relation to them….I became aware of the importance of seriously engaging with—not just acknowledging—various views of forming a balanced perspective. I also felt the need to contextualize my claims more to reduce the risk of being misinterpreted. In addition, this experience helped me realize that authors and readers are living human beings and that I need to be fair and respectful when I present them in my texts (this is not to say that I wasn’t be respectful)—just as students deserve to be treated fairly and respectfully in the research literature. (44, 46)

When networking online, Matsuda crafted his interactions to conceal his status as a graduate student and attempted to foreground his background as a NNES interested in TESOL, thus constructing a credible and professional ethos. Even though he attempted to appear authoritative, however, he recalls his approach as being just a façade; he was actually extremely insecure, so much that he ignored an invitation from a professor to collaborate on research. Besides networking, Matsuda also attributes much of his advancement as a scholar to his establishing a professional library of his own to include texts, articles, and journals relating to his interests as well as his commitment to writing seminar papers with the goal of eventually publishing. Ultimately, he feels that his goals for publishing changed during his graduate studies:

My goal was no longer just to publish but to respond to the conflicts, gaps, and discrepancies I perceived in the professional literature by contributing my perspective, which is informed by my inquiry—be it philosophical, historical, or empirical. I was no longer simply trying to engage in conversations with people in the field through my writing. At conferences, I tried to meet those people whose work I had read in order to gain a better sense of who they were and where they were coming from. I also saw it as a way of constantly reminding myself that they are real people who have not only interesting ideas and perspectives but also feelings—about issues in the field and about their own professional identity. (49-50)

Lastly, Matsuda’s story reminds graduate students and faculty alike that as tenure-track professors after graduate school, our professional work in the university (teaching, publishing, administrative and committee work, etc.) accompanies new pressures and challenges. To conclude, he ponders how pressures for faculty to publish—based on often unclear departmental policies—might affect or influence his current goals and reasons for publishing.