Writing tips

However, it is difficult to translate the term 'crafting' into German. In English, “to craft” is ambiguous. Collins online provides the explanation for “craft” as a transitive verb: “to make with skill, artistry or precision”, and the online dictionary dict.cc sugge

  • Поделиться с:

In the term, aspects of craftsmanship can be heard as well as a certain creative aspect (cf. Dengscherz 2018c, 2019a). About scientific writing, (write my paper) it seems obvious at first glance to emphasize the creative aspect when dealing with knowledge, but caution is advised insofar as domain-specific goals of scientific work (i.e. to create knowledge ) in this way - potentially also for others Areas of writing that can be used - model are carried into it and thus make it more difficult to apply the model to these other areas (e.g. journalistic writing, etc.). From a cross-domain perspective, crafting About addressee-specific text design, the creation of knowledge is not a mandatory requirement in all professional writing settings.

Professional writing aims to produce texts that “have to prove themselves in a practical context” (Verhein-Jarren 2006: 241). The focus here is on the communicative, addressee-specific aspect. Verein-Jarren ( 2006: 240) sums it up as follows: “I don't write to clarify (for myself) what I know.(buy argumentative essay) Nor do I write to document what I know for the readers. Rather, I write so that others can act. ”Writing is thus defined as a communicative act that enables others to act further. The text fulfills a function in a more complex social structure. Understanding this structure, anticipating the action expectations of others, and aligning your text with it is an aspect that has been discussed especially in contexts of translation studies (see Chapter 1 ) and which is well expressed through the reader orientation in knowledge crafting can be.


Writing development is socialization

After early writing research (e.g. Hayes Flower 1980, Bereiter 1980, Bereiter Scardamalia 1987 ) focused primarily on what individual writers do while writing and how their writing skills develop, after the "social turn" writing became stronger than socially embedded discursive practice analyzed. The “social turn” means “in part a rejection of prior attempts to conceptualize writing as a solely cognitive phenomenon” (Dryer 2016: 71). Complete exclusion of cognitive aspects would, however, ← 96 | 97 → mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater, because: If social aspects are taken into account, this does not mean that the cognitive aspects become meaningless. In my study, I, therefore, try to combine the two perspectives and thus arrive at a “thick description” (Geertz 1973 ) of writing (cf. Chapter 5 ), in which cognitive development and socialization are conceived in a networked manner.

If writing is understood as communicative action, the focus is on the social dimension of writing. It is reflected in the design of the communication offered in texts and the socialization of writers in different discourse communities and their conventions. This is reflected in didactic approaches to writing. Abraham ( 2014: 15) states, for example, that linguistic action and addressee orientation became the “benchmark for writing lessons” from the 1970s onwards, from which, among other things, the implementation of useful text types in writing lessons follows.

Writing development takes place, among other things, through dealing with texts, receptively as well as productively, and can therefore be viewed as a socialization process: Those who produce texts gradually write themselves into discourse communities. A writing development model that focuses on such socialization processes is that of Knappik ( 2018 ): Writing development in schools and universities is viewed as a process of negotiating viability. Knapik differentiates between three phases of development: writing before a viability requirement, writing for viability, and writing in viability (Knappik 2018: 135f). The phases can be repeated recursively if the context of the viability requirements changes (cf. Knappik 2017: 132), e.g. in the transition from school to university.

Like Bereiter ( 1980 ) or Augst et al. ( 2007 ) on writing in educational contexts. She defines the central concept of viability with recourse to Judith Butler's concept of the “viable subject” (Butler 1995: 42) as the “possibility of legitimately being in a context” (Knappik 2018: 123). This is where system and power issues come into play: The context (e.g. school or university) determines which requirements have to be met when writing, and individual writers are forced to adapt. While writing before viability requirement (i.e. before entering the system) means that the writing takes place in an uncontrolled manner and 'in freedom' (which is reminiscent of Elbow's “Writing without teachers”) while writing for viability is an - sometimes exhausting - process of adapting to the circumstances institutional contexts. Writing in viability in turn means that this adaptation process has been successful. With this perspective on writing, requirements are defined by the respective viability requirements. The focus is on the writers about the social system.

With writing before, in, and for viability, certain possibilities of writing development go hand in hand. Even writing before a viability requirement fulfills an important function: Hoppe ( 2003: 255) states that it is for the ← 97 | 98 → Acquiring writing skills, it is important that writing is “practiced first without restricting formal requirements” before “standardized forms” can be acquired in a meaningful way. About writing for and inViability means progressive writing development the step-by-step development of the ability to deal with restrictions: The regulation of the writing contexts sets specifications that must be met. On the one hand, this regulation enables the acquisition of writing skills, but on the other hand, it is experienced by many writers as frustrating, since writing is then often no longer experienced as writing "for intelligibility", i.e. not as writing "to be heard/understood but primarily to fulfill an order. With the letter to fulfill an order ", so Knappik" is connected to "resignation and regret" (Knappik 2017: 117).

The letter, to fulfill orders, is an important aspect in professional writing, and frustration by restrictions is professional writer * interior also not unknown, as also seen in the case studies (about the example of Daniel, CS2. See Cape . 6 ). In professional writing, however, it cannot be assumed that order-specific writing is in principle associated with “resignation and regret”. If so, professional writing would be an overall frustrating exercise. Rather, a distinction must be made between different types of assignments in different contexts, which gradually allow different amounts of self-determination. Knapik ( 2017, 2018) refers to school and university contexts in which learners write their way to viability by showing in constructed, fictitious communication situations - little self-determined - what they can do and to what extent they can implement requirements. The resulting texts are mostly not used outside of the exam situation.

In professional, professional writing, on the other hand, texts become part of the discourse community in that they are (can) be received by the addressees addressed in the communication situation. The authors of the texts pursue real intentions: They fulfill orders that have been placed because the resulting texts are needed. And this creates other prerequisites for the authenticity of the writing orders: Although specifications often have to be considered more precisely than with exercise or examination texts, they are easier to understand from the real communication situation.

Professional writing is then not only job-specific and therefore context-aware writing, but ideally also self-confident and responsible writing. Requirements for order-specific writing must be fulfilled, but it is also important to deal with these requirements confidently and self-determinedly. This means that (new) open spaces can be explored again (see Section 1.3.3 .). An example of such occupation of free spaces is, for example, the “ post-conventional use of language” mentioned by Steinhoff ( 2007: 138) by established scientists (see Section .) Or that of Young ( 2013 ) and Canagarajah ( 2013) described code meshing (see section .). However, 'degrees of freedom' can be expressed in parlance or ← 98 | 99 → make other aspects of the text design noticeable (e.g. an 'unconventional' structure or similar).

If Knappik's phases of writing development are transferred to professional writing, writing before a viability requirement would mean that the strict criteria of professionalism are not yet applied to the texts, while when writing for viability, writers (must) meet the requirements that provide professional writing to them. Write inViability means that writers have the professional writing so 'under control' that they have the necessary knowledge and skills to adequately fulfill the writing tasks that come their way. When writers have gradually established themselves in viability, the next step is to become aware of the range of variation in the conventions and to recognize the negotiation process behind them. This is the prerequisite for being able to participate in this negotiation process. At this point, in my opinion, another phase of socialization could be assumed, namely writing through viability: Having achieved viability empowers writers to actively shape the discourse. The adoption of such a fourth phase 'writing through viability' (premium essay)expands Knappik's model for professional writing (beyond educational contexts). Writers at this level have already written their way into the viability and are thus empowered to (partially) disregard conventions and actively participate in determining and developing the discourse. 


24 Просмотры