Reading and Writing

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 225–250 | Cite as

Reading–writing connections: Discourse-oriented research

Article

Abstract

As reading and writing are both language processes, one can assume relationships between them, but the exact nature of these relationships has not yet been determined. While a large body of research has addressed reading comprehension and written production independently, very little investigation has examined the possible relationships between these two psycholinguistic processes, particularly from a discourse and cognitive perspective. Argumentative texts were analyzed in the present investigation on reading–writing connections. Four tests were designed and tested on 439 eighth graders. The tests assessed psycholinguistic variables that account for the microstructural, macrostructural and superstructural levels of comprehension/production processing. Correlation results showed significant coefficients between reading and writing of argumentative texts in all the psycholinguistic levels analyzed. These results suggest that the processes involved in both activities share some common knowledge-based strategies.

Keywords

Reading–writing relations, Argumentation, Written discourse, Psycholinguistic processes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by FONDECYT Research Grant No. 1980/311.

References

  1. Arnoux E., Nogueira S., Silvestri A. (2002) La construcción de representaciones enunciativas: El reconocimiento de voces en la comprensión de textos polifónicos [The construction of representations: Voice recognition in reading poliphonic texts]. Revista Signos [Signs Journal] 35: 129–148Google Scholar
  2. Belanger J. (1987) Theory and research into reading and writing connections: A critical review. Reading-Canada Lecture 5: 10–21Google Scholar
  3. Boscolo P., Cisotto L. (1999) On narrative reading–writing relationships: How young writers construe the reader’s need for inferences. In: Goldman S., Graesser A., van den Broek P. (Eds) Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence. Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 161–178Google Scholar
  4. Brem S., Russell J., Weems L. (2001) Science on the web: Students’ evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes 32: 191–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camps A. (1995). Aprender a escribir textos argumentativos: Características dialógicas de la argumentación escrita [Learning to write argumentative texts: Dialogic characteristics in composing argumentation]. Infancia y Aprendizaje [Childhood and learning] 25: 51–63Google Scholar
  6. Camps A., Millian M. (2000) Metalinguistic activity in learning to write. Amsterdan University Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  7. Coirier P., Gaonac’h D., Passerault J. (1996) Psycholinguistique textuelle [Text psycholinguistics]. Hachette, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper L., Odell R. (1977) Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging. NCTE, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper L., Odell R. (1998) Evaluating writing: The role of teacher´s knowledge about text, learning & culture. NCTE, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
  10. Crombach L. (1988) Five perspectives on validity argument. In: Wainer H., Braun H. (Eds) Test validity. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3–19Google Scholar
  11. de Beaugrande R. (1997) New foundations for a science of text and discourse: Cognition, communication, and the freedom of access to knowledge and society. Ablex, Norwood, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. Eckhoff S. (1983). How reading affects children’s writing. Language Arts 60: 234–256Google Scholar
  13. Ede L., Lundford A. (1988) Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. In: Tate G., Corbett E. (Eds) The writing teacher’s sourcebook. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 248–259Google Scholar
  14. Eisterhold J. (1991) Reading–writing connections: Toward a description for second language learners. In: Kroll B. (Ed) Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 88–101Google Scholar
  15. Felton M., Kuhn D. (2001) The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes 32: 135–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fitzgerald J., Shanahan T. (2000) Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist 35: 39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gernsbacher M. (1990) Language comprehension as structure building. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  18. Golder C., Coirier P. (1994) Argumentative text writing: Developmental trends. Discourse Processes 18: 187–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gómez L. (1994) La dimensión social de la comprensión textual [Social dimension of textual comprehension]. Revista Signos [Signs Journal] 27: 35–46Google Scholar
  20. Graesser A., Bower G. (1992) Inferences and text comprehension. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  21. Graesser A., Gernsbacher M., Goldman S. (1997) Cognition. In: Van Dijk T. (Ed) Discourse as structure and process. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction Vol. 1. SAGE, London, pp. 7–27Google Scholar
  22. Graesser A., Magliano J., Haberlandt K. (1994a) Psychological studies of naturalistic text. In: van Oostendorp H., Zwaan R. (Eds) Naturalistic text comprehension. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 9–33Google Scholar
  23. Graesser A., Singer M., Trabasso T. (1994b) Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 101: 371–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graesser A., Swamer S., Baggett W., Sell M. (1996) New models of deep comprehension. In: Britton B., Graesser A. (Eds) Models of understanding text. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 5–27Google Scholar
  25. Greene S., Ackerman J. (1995) Expanding the constructivist metaphor: A rethorical perspective on literacy research and practice. Review of Educational Research 65: 383–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hair J., Anderson R., Tatham J., Black W. (1999) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Harp B., Brewer J. (1991) Reading and writing: Teaching for the connections. Harcourt Brace Yovanovich, Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  28. Hass A. (1989) Collaboration through writing and reading. NCTE, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
  29. Hedges L. (1988) The meta-analysis of test validity studies: Some new approaches. In: Wainer H., Braun H. (Eds) Test validity. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 191–213Google Scholar
  30. Heller M. (1995) Reading–writing connections: From theory to practice. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Irwin J. (1992) Research in reading/writing from 1900 to 1984. In: Irwin J., Doyle M. (Eds) Reading/writing connections: Learning from research. IRA, Newark, DE, pp. 308–333Google Scholar
  32. Irwin, J., & Doyle, M. (Eds.) (1992). Reading/writing connections: Learning from research. Newark, Delaware: IRAGoogle Scholar
  33. Karmiloff-Smith A. (1992) Beyond modulary: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  34. Kent, T. (Ed.) (1999). Post-process theory. Beyond the writing-process paradigm. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University PressGoogle Scholar
  35. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction–integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182Google Scholar
  36. Kintsch W. (1998) Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Kucer S. (1985) The making of meaning: Reading and writing as parallel processes. Written Communication 2: 317–356Google Scholar
  38. Kucer S. (2001) Dimensions of literacy. A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing in school settings. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  39. Langer J. (1986) Children reading and writing. Structures and strategies. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJGoogle Scholar
  40. Langer J. (2002) Effective literacy instruction. Building successful reading and writing programs. NCTE, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
  41. Madden C., Zwaan R. (2003) How does verb aspect constrain event representation? Memory & Cognition 31: 663–672Google Scholar
  42. Myers T., Brown K., McGonigle B. (1986) Reasoning and discourse processes. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Nelson N., Calfee R. (1998) The reading–writing connections viewed historically. In: Nelson N., Calfee R. (Eds) The reading–writing connection. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 1–52Google Scholar
  44. Nystrand M. (1987) The role of context in written communication. In: Horowitz R., Samuels J. (Eds) Comprehending oral and written language. Academic Press, New York, pp. 197–212Google Scholar
  45. Nystrand M. (1990) Sharing words: The effects of readers on developing writers. Written Communication 7: 3–24Google Scholar
  46. Olson G. (1999) Toward a post-process composition: Abandoning the rhetoric of assertion. In: Kent T. (Ed) Post-process theory. Beyond the writing-process paradigm. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, pp. 7–15Google Scholar
  47. Parodi, G. (1989). La inferencia una aproximación al concepto [Inferences: Approaching the concept]. In: Proceedings 8th congress of the Chilean society of linguistics (pp. 211–220). Santiago de ChileGoogle Scholar
  48. Parodi, G. (1990). Los procesos inferenciales en la comprensión de textos escritos [Inferential processes in reading comprehension]. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. (Unpublished Masters dissertation)Google Scholar
  49. Parodi G. (1992) Estructura textual y estrategias lectoras [Text structure and reading strategies]. Lenguas Modernas [Modern Languages] 19: 89–98Google Scholar
  50. Parodi G. (1998) Conexiones entre comprensión y producción de textos escritos: Estudio exploratorio en alumnos de educación básica [Reading–writing connections: Exploratory study with elementary schools students]. Revista Lingüística en el Aula [Journal of Classroom Linguistics] 2: 7–18Google Scholar
  51. Parodi G. (2000) La evaluación de a producción de textos escritos argumentativos: Una alternativa cognitivo discursiva [Evaluating written argumentative texts: A discourse and cognitive alternative]. Revista Signos [Signs Journal] 33: 151–167Google Scholar
  52. Parodi G. (2001) Comprensión y producción del discurso escrito: Estudio empírico en escolares chilenos [Reading and writing texts: Research with Chilean students]. Revista Iberoamericana de Discurso y Sociedad [Iberoamerican Journal of Discourse and Society] 3: 75–101Google Scholar
  53. Parodi, G. (2002). Comprensión lingüística: ¿Hacia dónde vamos desde donde estamos? [Reading comprehension: Where do we go from where we are?]. In: G. Parodi (Ed.), Lingüística e interdisciplinariedad: Desafíos del nuevo milenio. Ensayos en honor a Marianne Peronard [Linguistics and interdisciplinarity: Challenges of the new millennium. Essays in honor of Marianne Peronard] (pp. 44–67). Valparaíso: Editorial Universitaria de ValparaísoGoogle Scholar
  54. Parodi G. (2003) Relaciones entre lectura y escritura: Una perspectiva cognitiva discursiva [Relationships between reading and writing: Discursive and cognitive perspectives]. Editorial Universitaria de Valparaíso, ValparaísoGoogle Scholar
  55. Parodi G. (2005a) Comprensión de textos escritos [Comprehension of written discourse]. EUDEBA, Buenos, AiresGoogle Scholar
  56. Parodi, G. (Ed.) (2005b). Discurso especializado e instituciones formadoras [Specialized discourse and academic institutions]. Valparaíso: Editorial Universitaria de ValparaísoGoogle Scholar
  57. Parodi, G., & Núñez, P. (1998). El desarrollo de estrategias de lectura comprensiva: Una aplicación experimental del “Programa L y C: Leer y Comprender” [Reading strategies development: An experience with “Programa L y C: Leer y Comprender”]. In: M. Peronard, L. Gómez, G. Parodi, & P. Núñez (Eds.), Comprensión de textos escritos: De la teoría a la sala de clases [Reading comprehension: From theory to practice] (pp. 249–264). Santiago de Chile: Editorial Andrés BelloGoogle Scholar
  58. Parodi, G., & Núñez, P. (1999). En búsqueda de un modelo cognitivo/textual para la evaluación del texto escrito [In search of a model for the evaluation of written texts]. In: M. C. Martínez (Ed.), Comprensión y producción de textos académicos: Expositivos y argumentativos [Reading and writing academic texts: Expositive and argumentative genres] (pp. 81–115). Cali, Colombia: Universidad del ValleGoogle Scholar
  59. Peronard, M., Gómez, L., Parodi, G., & Núñez, P. (1998). Comprensión de textos escritos: De la teoría a la sala de clases [Reading comprehension: From theory to practice]. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Andrés BelloGoogle Scholar
  60. Reuter Y. (1995) Les relations lecture-écriture dans le champ didactique [The reading–writing relationtionship in methodological applications]. Pratiques [Practices] 86: 5–23Google Scholar
  61. Rickheit G., Strohner H. (1985) Inferences in text processing. Elsevier Science Publications, Amsterdam, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  62. Ruth L., Murphy S. (1988) Designing writing tasks for the assessment of writing Ablex, Norwood, NJGoogle Scholar
  63. Sadoski M., Paivio A. (1994) A dual coding view of imagery and verbal processes in reading comprehension. In: Ruddell R., Rudell M., Singer H. (Eds) Theoretical models and processes of reading. IRA, Newark, DE, pp. 582–601Google Scholar
  64. Sadoski M., Paivio A. (2001) Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  65. Sager M. (1989) Exploiting the reading–writing connection to engage students in text. Journal of Reading 33: 24–39Google Scholar
  66. Sánchez, I., & álvarez, N. (1999). El discurso argumentativo de los escolares venezolanos: ¿Evolución o estancamiento? [Argumentative discourse in Venezuelan school students: Development or stagnation?]. Paper presented at the 3rd International Congress of Discourse Analysis (ALED): Santiago de ChileGoogle Scholar
  67. Shanahan T. (1984) Nature of the reading–writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology 76: 466–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shanahan T., Lomax R. (1986) An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading–writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology 78: 116–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Spivey N. (1990) Transforming texts: Constructing processes in reading and writing. Written Communication 7: 256–290Google Scholar
  70. Spivey N. (1997) The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing and the making of meaning. Academic Press, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  71. Stotsky S. (1983) Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts 60: 627–642Google Scholar
  72. Tierney R. (1992) Ongoing research and new directions. In: Irwin J., Doyle M. (Eds) Reading/writing connections: Learning from research. IRA, Newark, DE, pp. 246–259Google Scholar
  73. Tierney R., Shanahan T. (1991) Research on the reading–writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In: Barr R., Kamil M., Mosenthal P., Pearson D. (Eds) Handbook of reading research Vol. II. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 246–280Google Scholar
  74. Van Dijk T. (1980) Macrostructures. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hilldale, NJGoogle Scholar
  75. Van Dijk T. (1985) Cognitive situation models in discourse production: The expression of ethnic situations in prejudiced discourse. In: Forgas P. (Ed) Language and social situations. Springer Verlag, New York, pp. 61–79Google Scholar
  76. Van Dijk T. (1990) Social cognition and discourse. In: Giles H., Robinson W. P. (Eds) Handbook of language and social psychology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 145–167Google Scholar
  77. Van Dijk, T. (1999). ¿Un estudio lingüístico de la ideología? [A linguistic study of ideology?]. In: G. Parodi (Ed.), Discurso, cognición y educación. Ensayos en honor a Luis A. Gómez Macker [Discourse, cognition, and education. Essays in honor of Luis A. Gómez Macker] (pp. 27–42). Valparaíso: Editorial Universitaria de ValparaísoGoogle Scholar
  78. Van Dijk, T. (2002). Tipos de conocimiento en el procesamiento del discurso [Knowledge types in discourse processing]. In: G. Parodi (Ed.), Lingüística e interdisciplinariedad: Desafíos del nuevo milenio. Ensayos en honor a Marianne Peronard [Linguistics and interdisciplinarity: Challenges of the new millennium. Essays in honor of Marianne Peronard] (pp. 30–43). Valparaíso: Editorial Universitaria de ValparaísoGoogle Scholar
  79. Van Dijk T., Kintsch W. (1983) Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  80. Van Oostendorp H., Zwaan R. (1994) Introduction: Naturalistic texts and naturalistic tasks. In: Van Oostendorp H., Zwaan R. (Eds) Naturalistic text comprehension. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ, pp. 1–8Google Scholar
  81. Vergara, M. (1999). Diseño y aplicación de encuestas de intereses en temas para lectura y escritura [Design and administration of reading and writing tests of interests]. In: G. Parodi (Ed.), Conexiones entre comprensión y producción de textos escritos en alumnos de educación básica [Reading-writing connections in elementary school students] (pp. 47–71). Valparaíso: Pontificia Universidad Católica de ValparaísoGoogle Scholar
  82. Weisser C., Dobrin S. (2001) Ecocomposition: Theoretical and pedagogical approaches. State University of New York Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  83. Zwaan R., Radvansky G. (1998) Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 123: 162–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of LinguisticsPontificia Universidad Católica de ValparaísoValparaísoChile

Personalised recommendations