ABSTRACT
In this chapter we first discuss writing as a physical and social activity, arguing against the assumptions implied by the term ‘procedures’ and the widely used term ‘skills’, in favour of our preferred term: ‘practices’. We then focus on mental processes involved in writing, briefly comparing writing with speaking as processes of language production, highlighting some key differences that make the writing process more difficult than talking for most people, and identifying the linguistic characteristics of written language that result from particular mental processes of production. We look at different attempts to describe what is involved in writing and the respective ‘models’ proposed. We describe an alternative representation of the writing process, building on the very important contribution that Hayes and Flower have made in emphasising the dynamic, non-linear nature of writing as a thinking process. Our view of writing treats it not merely as a set of physical procedures, and not merely as a cognitive process, but as a social practice consisting of a complex set of physical, socio-political, cognitive and affective elements. We argue that there is no right ‘route’ through the physical procedures and mental processes involved in writing and no right set of practices, but that the routes and practices selected are affected by the context in which the writer is operating, including the teaching of writing approaches that s/he has been exposed to and the nature of the writing task itself, as well as the individual writer’s ideologies and preferences. To illustrate the generalisable application of our representation of the writing process, we draw on interviews with the playwright Trevor Griffiths about his writing practices as a playwright and his responses to some of the elements we believe are central to writing.
