"Like A 'Bridge Over Troubled Water'"

I don't know if I'm ahead or behind with the reading, so I'll just comment on the most recent article I've read, coauthored by Linda Flower and John R. Hayes entitled, "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing" (1981).

In it, they theorize, via "protocol analysis" (366 & 368), that our traditional understanding of the composing process is ultimately lacking . That is, Flower and Hayes argue that the old linear and sequential model of describing and explaining composition, characterized by clearly delineated and therefore easily identifiable stages in the writing process, does little to help us identify, describe, and explain the cognitive processes that spur the decisions writers make and the subsequent actions they take as they negotiate their way over and across the troubled waters of discourse by building bridges of understanding via meaning-making, bridges we call compositions.

So how is Flower's and Hayes' theoretical bridge built? Well, presumably the foundations are laid first, so foremost is the principle that "[w]riting is best understood as a set of distinctive thinking processes which writers orchestrate or organize during the act of composing" (366). So, rather than a series of sequential stages, each evidenced by some concrete, identifiable act, writing really involves, according to Flowers and Hayes, a complex series of interrelated cognitive iterations, thus leading us to lay the cornerstone of their theory which states that "[t]he processes of writing are hierarchically organized, with component processes embedded within other [component processes]" (375). With the foundation firmly laid and the cornerstone set in place, we can now put the "keystone" securely in place, that "proposition" whereby composition is seen as "a goal-directed process[, where,] in the act of composing, writers create a hierarchical network of goals and [that] these in turn [further] guide the writing process" (377).

As the keystone of their theory, this proposition is essential, according to Flowers and Hayes, to our understanding of the compositional process, for it describes and explains how writers generate ideas towards further composition, thus generating even more ideas, ultimately leading to the construction of a bridge that effectively responds to any given "rhetorical situation" (365), but before it can do that, the fourth procedure must be identified and realized through the recognition that "[w]riters create their own goals in two ways: by generating goals and supporting sub-goals which embody a purpose; and, at times, by changing or regenerating their own top-level goals in light of what they have learned [during the composition process]" (381). That is, by exploring and consolidating new ideas, stating and developing those same ideas, then writing and regenerating them (382-386, passim), writers are better able to "translate" (373-374, passim) the meanings that they're trying to make.

So, like a bridge over troubled water, this composition theory bridges the gap in our knowledge and understanding that lies between the "venerable tradition in rhetoric and composition which sees the composition process as a series of decisions and choices" on the one hand, and the answer to the question: "What guides the decisions writers make [...]?" (365) on the other.

"Sail on Silver Girl,/Sail on by..."