Bizzell v. Flower/Hayes

The relationship between thought and language is where Patricia Bizzell starts in her article “Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know About Writing.” While composition specialists may agree about certain fundamentals regarding the development of thought and language, there is a distinct split when it comes to deciding what part is relevant to composition studies (480). Bizzell uses Flower and Hayes’ inner-directed model of the composition process, which is more concerned about “the structure of language-learning and thinking processes in their earliest state, prior to social influence,” and contrasts/supplements it with the outer-directed model, which is “more interested in the social processes whereby language-learning and thinking capacities are shaped and used in particular communities” (480).

Once she expands upon the primary differences between the inner- and outer-directed models, Bizzell moves onto an explanation of how the two could possibly work together, particularly in the planning and translating stages of Flower and Hayes’ model. Citing Vygotsky’s work, Bizzell contends that planning and translating “should not” be separated, and further that “we should understand them as conditioned by social context” (487). Turning to the work of sociolinguistics, she next cautions composition specialists to avoid the “bottom-to-top” fallacy, or “the notion that a writer first finds meaning, then put it into words, then organizes the words into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, etc.,” and consider instead that it is the discourse that gives meaning to the words (487). In acknowledging the role of a contextually situated discourse, and its corresponding interpretive community, as an integral part of the writing process “a whole range of possibilities for making meaning” emerge (487).

Bizzell’s larger critique of inner-directed composition models appears towards the end of the article. She claims that the kind of scientific research Flower and Hayes are so famous for cannot “possess the kind of authoritative certainty” they are searching for because “we cannot formulate universal rules for context-bound activities” (494). Even though inner-directed models can appeal to instructors for various reasons, they ultimately lead instructors away from questioning the political and ethical implications of the job. Discourse analysis would help to “foster responsible inspection” of the “hidden curriculum” in the composition classroom, and ideally lead to students having a “conscious commitment” to world views instead of “unconsciously conforming” (496).

While Bizzell appears at the outset of the article to not want to completely tear apart the Flower and Hayes model, by the end she is making it clear that this model “cannot alone give us a complete picture of the [writing] process” (491). It’s pretty clear she favors an outer-directed model, particularly when it comes to thinking about those some would consider “poor writers.” Inner-directed model composition specialists would consider a student who has difficulties writing or using the language to have a cognitive deficiency, whereas outer-directed thinkers would believe the same to student to simply be unfamiliar with the discourse (488, 489). I find myself leaning more towards Bizzell’s side in this debate if only because some of the underlying assumptions made by Flower and Hayes make me uncomfortable.