Tamar Questions 1 and 2
Question #1 What is a useful conceptualization/definition of writing? Does it apply equally to L1 and L2 students?
Last year I took a class in which we were asked to define writing. This is what I wrote:
Writing as I interpret it, is not the mere physical act of keystrokes or pencil/pen strokes. This may be considered writing in the technical sense, but it is quite possible for someone to “write” this way when transcribing or doing calligraphy. You could do a phonetic transcription of the sounds of another language without any idea of what the transcribed words mean. Or you might practice the art of beautiful script without concern for combining the characters into meaningful units. Therefore, for me, the most essential characteristic of writing (as more than a physical act) is making meaning.
The concept of meaning is vast; however, at the most basic level, writing involves a writer using a modality outside of spoken or signed language to create meaning that the writer herself understands. While it is most often the case that this written form is understood by other readers, I do not believe, in its most fundamental form, that this is necessary for writing to meet my definition of meaning making.
Writing = Meaning Making = something created and understood by a writer in a form that is distinct from the more spontaneous form of oral/signed communication.
This distinct form is unique in its relationship to time. There is a degree of permanency in that the writer (and readers) can return to this written message; however, there is also a degree of impermanence and changeability in this form because in returning to this message, the writer can adjust, alter and revise. Likewise a reader can reinterpret and derive new meaning when reading the same piece of writing again.
_____
I stand by this definition, and if anything my understanding of what writing is/can be has become more expansive. I believe it applies equally to L1 and L2 students, but perhaps is even more significant for L2 students because depending on their proficiency level they may need to make use of more modalities for meaning making in order to be understood by an L1 audience. I agree with Casanave when she states "Representation of meaning has always been multimodal...." (p. 70). I think there is a great deal of fear of modes that are new and unknown. There will always be this generational gap, and the arguments against more expansive definitions, in my opinion, result from fear and/or nostalgia to preserve some "standard". The fact is, language, and therefore writing standards, are always changing. It might just be happening faster now, but it has always been this way and the old-school and new-school have essentially been having the same tensions.
Question #2 Should we be using different terms for different modes of meaning making?
I really think this depends on our purposes. I like the word "composition". It refers to the act of composing which can manifest in many forms. However, I think it is important to define "writing" in our teaching and research and make it clear what we are referring to. This really goes back to our fundamental definition. Here is another excerpt from something I wrote last year:
I understand writing as thinking and learning. It follows naturally that if writing is thinking and learning, that I would have a process, rather than product, orientation. Coming from this orientation, one that is shared (supposedly), with many others w/in and outside of my field, I can’t help but feel that adherence to a fixed standard is at odds with these fundamental beliefs. If we believe writing is learning why adhere to the “standard”? What does this adherence have to do with learning? (Other than learning/demonstrating/performing a dominant form)
If we value process over product why adhere to the “standard”? Process is part of learning, and writing is learning, so what is product other than a place at which we have paused in our process due to external demands? If we truly believe writing is learning and thinking, and we value process, shouldn’t any product be understood as the learner’s thinking at that point in time? Any adherence to a standard would be a choice, but irrelevant in terms of demonstrating learning/thinking… unless what is to be learned is the form and product itself.____________
Last year I took a class in which we were asked to define writing. This is what I wrote:
Writing as I interpret it, is not the mere physical act of keystrokes or pencil/pen strokes. This may be considered writing in the technical sense, but it is quite possible for someone to “write” this way when transcribing or doing calligraphy. You could do a phonetic transcription of the sounds of another language without any idea of what the transcribed words mean. Or you might practice the art of beautiful script without concern for combining the characters into meaningful units. Therefore, for me, the most essential characteristic of writing (as more than a physical act) is making meaning.
The concept of meaning is vast; however, at the most basic level, writing involves a writer using a modality outside of spoken or signed language to create meaning that the writer herself understands. While it is most often the case that this written form is understood by other readers, I do not believe, in its most fundamental form, that this is necessary for writing to meet my definition of meaning making.
Writing = Meaning Making = something created and understood by a writer in a form that is distinct from the more spontaneous form of oral/signed communication.
This distinct form is unique in its relationship to time. There is a degree of permanency in that the writer (and readers) can return to this written message; however, there is also a degree of impermanence and changeability in this form because in returning to this message, the writer can adjust, alter and revise. Likewise a reader can reinterpret and derive new meaning when reading the same piece of writing again.
_____
I stand by this definition, and if anything my understanding of what writing is/can be has become more expansive. I believe it applies equally to L1 and L2 students, but perhaps is even more significant for L2 students because depending on their proficiency level they may need to make use of more modalities for meaning making in order to be understood by an L1 audience. I agree with Casanave when she states "Representation of meaning has always been multimodal...." (p. 70). I think there is a great deal of fear of modes that are new and unknown. There will always be this generational gap, and the arguments against more expansive definitions, in my opinion, result from fear and/or nostalgia to preserve some "standard". The fact is, language, and therefore writing standards, are always changing. It might just be happening faster now, but it has always been this way and the old-school and new-school have essentially been having the same tensions.
Question #2 Should we be using different terms for different modes of meaning making?
I really think this depends on our purposes. I like the word "composition". It refers to the act of composing which can manifest in many forms. However, I think it is important to define "writing" in our teaching and research and make it clear what we are referring to. This really goes back to our fundamental definition. Here is another excerpt from something I wrote last year:
I understand writing as thinking and learning. It follows naturally that if writing is thinking and learning, that I would have a process, rather than product, orientation. Coming from this orientation, one that is shared (supposedly), with many others w/in and outside of my field, I can’t help but feel that adherence to a fixed standard is at odds with these fundamental beliefs. If we believe writing is learning why adhere to the “standard”? What does this adherence have to do with learning? (Other than learning/demonstrating/performing a dominant form)
If we value process over product why adhere to the “standard”? Process is part of learning, and writing is learning, so what is product other than a place at which we have paused in our process due to external demands? If we truly believe writing is learning and thinking, and we value process, shouldn’t any product be understood as the learner’s thinking at that point in time? Any adherence to a standard would be a choice, but irrelevant in terms of demonstrating learning/thinking… unless what is to be learned is the form and product itself.____________
Comments
Post a Comment