Flower, Linda and Hayes, John. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing”

Flower, Linda and Hayes, John. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing” 273.
I found this article extremely difficult to focus on. The ideas behind it, I think, are quite good, but the language of the article itself, the charts, and the length were a pain. Trying to break writing down into a scientifically styled process does not work for me. Writing, like language itself, is a living breathing thing that changes in geographical, academic, and personal arenas. It grows and develops within the person applying the written language to an idea. We can try all we want to make it a “scientific process”, but in the end it will be what it is.
What drives a writer? (275-76).
“In a process model, the major units of analysis are elementary mental processes, such as the process of generating ideas” (276).
More than a process, this is a fluid mental evolution of a writer’s ideas.
“The act of writing involves three major elements which are reflected in the three units of the model: the task environment, the writer’s long-term memory, and the writing process” (277).
“The third element in our model contains writing processes themselves, specifically the basic processes of Planning, Translating, and Reviewing, which are under the control of a Monitor” (277).
“Just as a title constrains the content of a paper and a topic sentence shapes the options of a paragraph, each word in the growing text determines and limits the choices of what can come next” (279).
“In the planning process writers form an internal representation of the knowledge that will be used in writing” (280).
“Planning or the act of building this internal representation, involves a number of sub-processes. The most obvious is the act of generating ideas which includes retrieving relevant information from long-term memory.
“the sub-process of organizing takes on the job of helping the writer make meaning,” (281).
“Goal-setting is indeed a third, little-studied but major, aspect of the planning process” (281).
“The most important thing about writing goals is the fact that they are created by the writer” (281).
Yes, but then this also means that the goals are constantly changing and being recreated. The goals are also influenced by multiple sources—the writers REASON for writing (i.e., for a course); the writer’s desired outcome of the writing (i.e., money or a good grade or self-satisfaction) and multiple others. This makes “goals” a rather tenuous thing to try to study.
Moment to moment process of composing.
[Translating] “This is essentially the process of putting ideas into visible language. We have chosen the term translate for this process over other terms such as “transcribe” or “write” in order to emphasize the peculiar qualities of the task” (282).
Taking visual representations and other items from the mind and placing them into words.
[Reviewing] “Reviewing itself, may be a conscious process in which writers choose to read what they have written either as a springboard to further translating or with an eye to systematically evaluating and or/revising the text” (283).
[The Monitor] “As writers compose, they also monitor their current process and progress. The monitor functions as a writing strategist which determines when the writer moves from one process to the next” (283).
“In order to understand a writer’s goals, then, we must be sensitive to the broad range of plans, goals, and criteria that grow out of goal-directed thinking” (287).
“4. Writers create their own goals in two key ways: by generating goals and supporting sub-goals which embody a purpose; and, at times, by changing or regenerating their own top-level goals in light of what they have learned by writing” (290).
“Explore and Consolidate”
“State and Develop”
“Write and Regenerate” (291).