Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discourse as Framework

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Writing Center as Cultural and Interdisciplinary Contact Zone

  • 275 Accesses

Abstract

In “Discourse as Framework,” Monty lays out the scholarly and methodological foundations for the book, with particular emphasis on how identifications across Writing Center Studies (WCS) have been constructed through representations of place and space. This framework makes use of a contextualist research paradigm to identify appropriate strands of critical discourse analysis. These strands are further defined with elements of ecocomposition, social justice pedagogy, and theories from Writing Across the Curriculum and Writing in the Disciplines. The methodology is designed to build theory that will help WCS stakeholders to assess their own discursive practices. This chapter closes with a redefining of the parameters of the terms “rhetoric” and “discourse.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alsup, J. (2011). Seeking connection: An English educator speaks across a disciplinary contact zone. English Education, 34(1), 31–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applebaum, B. (2003). Social justice, democratic education and the silencing of words that wound. Journal of Moral Education, 32(2), 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, K. (2009). Prairies and potential spaces: Placing experience within rural landscapes. In D. R. Powell & J. P. Tassoni (Eds.), Composing other spaces (pp. 17–36). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bawarshi, A. (2001). The ecology of genre. In C. Weisser & S. Dobrin (Eds.), Ecocomposition: Theoretical and pedagogical approaches (pp. 69–80). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (1991). Review: The second stage in writing across the curriculum. College English, 53(2), 209–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (2011). The disciplined interdisciplinarity of writing studies. Research in the Teaching of English, 46(1), 8–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, L. S., & Conrad-Salvo, T. (2007). Dialogue and collaboration: Writing lab applied tutoring techniques to relations with other writing programs. In W. Macauley & N. Maurillo (Eds.), Marginal words marginal work? Tutoring the academy in the work of writing centers (pp. 183–196). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickford, C. (2007). Inside looking out: Trading immediate autonomy for long-term centrality. In W. Macauley & N. Maurillo (Eds.), Marginal words marginal work? Tutoring the academy in the work of writing centers (pp. 135–150). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakely, B., & Pagnac, S. (2012). Pausing in the whirlwind: A campus place-based curriculum in a multimodal foundation communication course. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 35(2), 11–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 447–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. (1950). A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carino, P. (1995). Early writing centers: Toward a history. The Writing Center Journal, 15(2), 103–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carino, P., & Enders, D. (2001). Does frequency of visits to the writing center increase student satisfaction? A Statistical correlation study—or story. The Writing Center Journal, 22(1), 83–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrol, L. A. (2002). Rehearsing new roles: How college students develop as writers. Studies in writing and rhetoric. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, M. (1986). The ecology of writing. College English, 48(4), 364–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, M. (1994). Really useful knowledge: A cultural studies agenda for writing centers. The Writing Center Journal, 14(2), 97–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, S. (2011). Using case study multi-methods to investigate close(r) collaboration: Course-based tutoring and the directive/nondirective instructional continuum. The Writing Center Journal, 31(1), 55–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beaugrande, R. (2004). Critical discourse analysis from the perspective of ecologism. Critical Discourse Studies, 1(1), 113–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobrin, S. (2001). Writing takes place. In C. Weisser & S. Dobrin (Eds.), Ecocomposition: Theoretical and pedagogical approaches (pp. 11–26). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobrin, S. (2011). Postcomposition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolmage, J. (2009). Mapping composition: Inviting disability in the front door. In D. R. Powell & J. P. Tassoni (Eds.), Composing other spaces (pp. 121–144). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, D. L., & Perdue, S. W. (2012). Theory, lore, and more: An analysis of RAD research in The Writing Center Journal, 1980–2009. The Writing Center Journal, 32(1), 11–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ede, L. (1996). Writing centers and the politics of location: A response to Terrance Riley and Stephen M North. Writing Center Journal, 16(2), 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ede, L. (2004). Situating composition: Composition studies and the politics of location. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (2000). Some millennial thoughts about the future of writing centers. The Writing Center Journal, 20(2), 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2001). The discourse of new labour: Critical discourse analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 229–266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferry, C. (1998). Theory, research, practice, work. In C. Farris & C. M. Anson (Eds.), Under Construction: Working at the Intersections of Composition Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 11–18). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fosen, C. (2009). Inside, outside, alongside: Geographies of a writing workshop. In D. R. Powell & J. P. Tassoni (Eds.), Composing other spaces (pp. 162–184). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (1991). Disciplinary boundaries in the rhetoric of the social sciences. Poetics Today, 12(2), 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaviely-Nuri, D. (2012). Cultural approach to CDA. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(1), 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, A. E., Condon, F., & Carroll, M. (2011). The everyday writing center and the production of new knowledge in antiracist theory and practice. In L. Greenfield & K. Rowan (Eds.), Writing centers and the new racism: A call for sustainable dialogue and change (pp. 101–123). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladstein, J. (2007). Quietly creating an identity for a writing center. In W. Macauley & N. Maurillo (Eds.), Marginal words marginal work? Tutoring the academy in the work of writing centers (pp. 211–244). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grego, R., & Thompson, N. (2008). Teaching/writing in thirdspaces. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, N., Wysocki, A., & Cooper, M. (1998). Rewriting praxis (and redefining texts) in composition research. In C. Farris & C. M. Anderson (Eds.), Under construction: Working at the intersections of composition theory, research, and practice (pp. 250–281). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, C. H. (2010). Is English the key to access the wonders of the modern world? A critical discourse analysis. Documentos de Investigación, 29(2), 294–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N. (2009). Communities of practice: Fostering peer-to-peer learning and informal knowledge sharing in the work place. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. (2000). Preparing to sit at the head table: Maintaining writing center viability in the twenty-first century. The Writing Center Journal, 20(2), 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. (2007). Writing ourselves into writing instruction: Beyond sound bytes, tours, reports, orientations and brochures. In W. Macauley & N. Maurillo (Eds.), Marginal words marginal work? Tutoring the academy in the work of writing centers (pp. 75–84). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawk, B. (2007). A counter-history of composition: Toward methodologies of complexity. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hearn, M. (2008). Developing a critical discourse: Michel Foucault and the cult of solidarity. Critical Discourse Studies, 5(1), 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huckin, T. (1992). Context-sensitive text analysis. In G. Kirsch & P. A. Sullivan (Eds.), Methods and methodology in composition research (pp. 84–104). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois university Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huckin, T. (2002). Critical discourse analysis and the discourse of condescension. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 155–176). New York, NY: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingberg, A. (1995). A comment on “ ‘contact zones’ and English studies”. College English, 57(5), 599–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, A. (2001). Service learning and ecocomposition: Developing sustainable practices through inter- and extradisciplinarity. In W. Macauley & N. Maurillo (Eds.), Ecocomposition: Theoretical and pedagogical approaches (pp. 209–233). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanek, C. (2000). Composing research: A contextualist paradigm for rhetoric and composition. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, C. (2001). The ecology of writerly voice: Authorship, ethos, and persona. In W. Macauley & N. Maurillo (Eds.), Ecocomposition: Theoretical and pedagogical approaches (pp. 193–208). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettle, M. (2005). Critical discourse analysis and hybrid texts: Analysing English as a second language (ESL). Melbourne Studies in Education, 46(2), 87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinkead, J. (1997). Documenting evaluation in WAC programs: Theories, issues, and strategies for teachers. In K. B. Yancey & B. Huot (Eds.), Assessing writing across the curriculum: Diverse approaches and practices (pp. 37–50). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knodt, E. (2009). Teaching in the ‘contact zone’: Writing assignments to counter resistance to multicultural readings. Journal of Teaching Writing, 17(1 & 2), 74–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liggett, S., Jordan, K., & Price, S. (2011). Mapping knowledge-making in writing center research: A taxonomy of methodologies. The Writing Center Journal, 31(2), 50–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez, D. F. (2007). From theory to method: A methodological approach within critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, 4(2), 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mautner, G. (2009). Checks and balances: How corpus linguistics can contribute to CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 122–143). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendez Newman, B. (2003). Centering in the borderlands: Lessons from Hispanic student writers. The Writing Center Journal, 23(2), 43–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. (1994). Fault lines in the contact zone. College English, 56(4), 389–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montessori, N. M. (2011). The design of a theoretical, methodological, analytical framework to analyse hegemony in discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(3), 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullin, J. (2001). Writing centers and WAC. In S. H. McLeod, E. Miraglia, M. Soven, & C. Thaiss (Eds.), WAC for the new millennium: Strategies for continuing writing-across-the-curriculum programs (pp. 179–199). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagelhout, E. (2009). Commuting genre: First-year composition through a postsuburban lens. In D. R. Powell & J. P. Tassoni (Eds.), Composing other spaces (pp. 145–159). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolas, M. (2007). Why there is no “happy ever after”: A look at the stories and images that sustain us. In W. Macauley & N. Maurillo (Eds.), Marginal words marginal work? Tutoring the academy in the work of writing centers (pp. 1–18). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard, R. (1999). Negotiating expertise in ‘disciplinary contact zones’. Learning and Language Across the Disciplines, 3(2), 44–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, S. (1984). The idea of a writing center. College English, 46(5), 433–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, D. (2007). Two centers, not one. In W. Macauley & N. Maurillo (Eds.), Marginal words marginal work? Tutoring the academy in the work of writing centers (pp. 151–167). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. Abington, OH: Routledge. Kindle Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plevin, A. (2001). The Liberatory positioning of place in ecocomposition: Reconsidering Paulo Freire. In W. Maccauley & N. Maurillo (Eds.), Ecocomposition: Theoretical and pedagogical approaches (pp. 147–162). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, B. (2010). Commitment and criticality: Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis evaluated. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Reprinted from Profession, 91. Modern Language Association, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, N. (2004). Geographies of writing: Inhabiting places and encountering difference. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickert, T. (2013). Ambient rhetoric: The attunements of rhetorical being. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, T. (1994). The unpromising future of writing centers. The Writing Center Journal, 15(1), 20–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitzmüller, J., & Warnke, I. H. (2011). Discourse as a ‘linguistic object’: Methodical and methodological delimitations. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(2), 75–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trinklein, M. J. (2010). True stories of Texlahoma, Transylvania, and other states that never made it. Philadelphia, PA: Quirk Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. (1996). Discourse, power, and access. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 84–104). London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. (1998). Opinions and ideologies in the press. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to media discourse (pp. 21–63). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 62–86). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, T. R. (2002). Signs of struggle: The rhetorical politics of cultural difference. Albany, NY: SUNY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Review article: The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 136–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkey, C., & Dreese, D. (2007). Institutionalizing ethical collaboration across difference in writing centers. In W. J. Macauley & N. Maurillo (Eds.), Marginal words, marginal work? Tutoring the academy in the work of writing centers (pp. 169–82). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. D., & Takaku, S. (2011). Help seeking, self-efficacy, and writing performance among college students. Journal of Writing Research, 3(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winsor, D. A. (1992). What counts as writing? An argument from engineers’ practice. Journal of Advanced Composition, 12(2), 337–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R. (1999). Critical discourse analysis at the end of the 20th Century. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 32(1–2), 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, W. I. (2013). Interactivity and the invisible: What counts as writing in the age of Web 2.0. Computers and Composition, 30(3), 211–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zawacki, T. M. (2007). Expanding the center: A Narrative about resources, roles, and the right tutors. In W. Macauley & N. Maurillo (Eds.), Marginal words marginal work? Tutoring the academy in the work of writing centers (pp. 257–264). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, Texas, USA

    Randall W. Monty

Authors
  1. Randall W. Monty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Monty, R.W. (2016). Discourse as Framework. In: The Writing Center as Cultural and Interdisciplinary Contact Zone. Palgrave Pivot, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54094-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54094-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-54093-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-54094-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation