Concept 1: Writing is a Social and Rhetorical Activity, a chapter in Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies by Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth Wardle, is a collection of thoughts, ideas, and composition pedagogies that is easy to read, yet quite informative. Kevin Roozen is a solid leadoff batter for the lineup of writers in Concept 1. In Writing is a Social and Rhetorical Concept he describes with precision how writing is a relational process between the writer and reader/audience. Whether the audience is imagined or known, the writer establishes a relationship with the reader and moves within that space during the creative process. Roozen connects his ideas well to teaching writing in college, explaining, "If teachers can help students consider their potential audiences and purposes, they can better help them understand what makes a text effective or not, what it accomplishes, and what it falls short of accomplishing" (18). Instructors should stretch the minds of FYC students to get them to view their audience as a concept, rather than one person, their professor. This is a challenge that I am looking forward to as an FYC instructor in the 2022-23 academic year. To explore how this relationship works in an academic construct between a teacher and student, visit Reader and Writer Relationships in Academic Writing from academicswrite.ca.
Andrea Lunsford's contribution, Writing Addresses, Invokes, and/or Creates Audiences, speaks to the challenge both writers and FYC students have in writing for both actual, known audiences and imagined audiences. Her Walter Ong reference is quite useful as we compare writing to speaking. Ong's "The Writer's Audience is Always a Fiction" explains this concept. Writers cannot see their readers, whereas a speaker's audience is "immediately present, right in front of the speaker" (Lunsford 20). This immediate reaction shows (visually and audibly) a speaker what (content) their audience responds to and how they react (gasps, claps, cheers, sighs, boos, yells, raised hands). Professional writers and students do not have this luxury. They must envision their audience. A journalist writing for a magazine must think beyond their known audience consisting of subscribers. What about that new, first-time reader that randomly picks up your magazine at an airport during a layover? That is a new member of your audience. For students, thinking beyond their teacher is critical. They, perhaps more than any other class of writers, must truly imagine readers other than their professor. The University of North Carolina Writing Center offers a useful overview of audience from a college student's perspective.
In Writing is Not Natural Dylan B. Dryer explores one of the key frustrations of the writing. Speaking comes natural to almost everyone. By speaking I do not mean a formal, prepared speech. I mean everyday speaking in comfortable environments like one's home, or within one's personal and social networks. We critique both writing and speaking with terms like tone and voice, but the context of each activity significantly affects how these terms are applied. Dryer highlights this quandary: "English speakers routinely talk about writing as if it were speech, characterizing their inability to understand a text as difficulty understanding what that text is 'saying,' speaking of a writer’s 'voice' or 'tone,' describing readers as an 'audience,' and so forth" (27). Dyer references how we critique writing using the same words used to analyze speech, but that this commonality is problematic. I agree that speech is an inherently different activity than writing. In the traditional education model and in our homes as a young child, we learned to speak first, long before we wrote any sentences. I am not suggesting that we should not use tone or voice to describe writers or their writing. But the applications of those words are an easier, more natural, fit with speech. Listeners can literally hear the speaker's voice, yet readers can only figuratively hear writer's voice. For FYC students, finding their academic voice (while embracing their personal voice/style) can be challenging. The University of Arizona's Writing Center provides a helpful primer on academic voice, both useful for students and professors.
additional resources to explore
Q1 How does the relationship between the writer and audience work for FYC students, when the actual audience (the only reader) is the instructor, but we want students to think of their audience beyond their professor?
Q2 Bazerman mentions that writers may not like the idea that their work conveys a meaning that is different from their original intent (22). What are your thoughts on this? Should writers embrace the reality that readers will view and respond to their work in various and competing ways?
Works Cited
Adler-Kassner, Linda, and Elizabeth Wardle. Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies. Utah State University Press, 2015.
Comments