Cover not available
Article published In:
Writing and the Mind
Edited by David R. Olson and Marcelo Dascal †
[Pragmatics & Cognition 21:3] 2013
► pp. 469–483

Bridging the gap between writing and cognition

Materiality of written vehicles reconsidered

| Maria Curie-Sklodowska University

The claim that the invention of literacy has cognitive consequences, so-called Literacy Theory, is subject to the criticism that it implies a form of technological determinism. This criticism, however, assumes an outdated Cartesian model of mind, a mind independent of the body and the external world. Such an internalistic framework leaves unexplored the cognitive consequences of the material dimension of writing. Therefore, in order to dismiss the accusations of technological determinism, the Cartesian model of mind and cognition needs to be reconsidered. The paper demonstrates how the framework of situated cognition helps to account for the cognitive consequences of written artifacts themselves. Material characteristics of written vehicles such as spatial and temporal stability of the content, fixity of information with reference to page boundaries, lightness and small size of paper sheets, and spatial layout of documents make up the most relevant material factors enabling the distribution of cognitive work.

Keywords: technological determinism, Literacy Theory, written vehicles, extended mind, situated cognition, cognitive technology, materiality of writing, consequences of writing
Published online: 24 July 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21.3.03try
References
Anderson, M.L
2003 “Embodied cognition: A field guide”. Artificial Intelligence 149(1): 91–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aydede, M. and Robbins, P
2009 “A short primer on situated cogniton”. In M. Aydede and P. Robbins (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 3–10.Google Scholar
Barton, D
2001 “Directions for literacy research: Analysing language and social practices in a textually mediated world”. Language and Education 15(2-3): 92–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, A
2001 “Reasons, robots and the extended mind”. Mind & Language 16(2): 121–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Material symbols”. Philosophical Psychology 19(3): 291–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Supersizing the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. and Chalmers, D
1998 “The extended mind”. Analysis 581: 10–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M
2002 “Language as a cognitive technology”. International Journal of Cognition and Technology 1(1): 35–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D.C
1996 Kinds of Minds. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Finnegan, R.H
1988 Literacy and Orality. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.Google Scholar
Gee, J
2000 “The new literacy studies and the social turn ”. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, and R. Ivanic (eds), Situated Literacies. London and New York: Routledge, 177–195.Google Scholar
Goody, J
1975 Literacy in Traditional Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1977 The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1986 The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goody, J. and Watt, I
1975 “The consequences of literacy”. In J. Goody (ed), Literacy in Traditional Societies, 27–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Haas, C
1996 Writing Technology. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E
1995 Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kirsh, D. and Maglio, P
1994 “On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action”. Cognitive Science 18(4): 513–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroes, P
2010 “Engineering and the dual nature of technical artifacts.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 341: 51–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLuhan, M.H
1994 Understanding Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McQuail, D
2002 “General introduction”. In D. McQuail (ed.) McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 4–19.Google Scholar
Menary, R
2006 Cognitive Integration. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
2007 “Writing as thinking”. Language Sciences 291: 621–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyrowitz, J
1985 No Sense of Place. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1994 “Medium theory”. In D. Crowley and D. Mitchell (eds), Communication Theory Today. Cambridge: Stanford University Press, 50–77.Google Scholar
O’Hara, K.P., Taylor, A., Newman, W., and Sellen, A.J
2002 “Understanding the materiality of writing from multiple sources”. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 56(3): 269–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olson, D.R
1977 “From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing”. Harvard Educational Review 471: 257–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 “Mind and media: The epistemic functions of literacy”. Journal of Communication 38(3): 27–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 The World on Paper. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ong, W.J
2002 Orality and Literacy. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roepstorff, A
2008 “Things to think with: Words and objects as material symbols”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 3631: 2049–2054. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Street, B.V
1984 Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1999 “The meanings of literacy”. In D.A. Wagner, R.L. Venezky, and B.V. Street (eds), Literacy: An International Handbook. Boulder CO.: Westview Press, 34–40.Google Scholar
Theiner, G
2011 Res Cogitans Extensa. Frankfurt: Petr Lang.Google Scholar
2013 “Writing in mind”. AVANT, 4(2), 15–29.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S
1987 The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume 11. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Williams, R
1992 Television: Technology and Cultural Form. Hanover NH: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, J. and Patel V.L
2006 “Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance”. Pragmatics and Cognition 14(2): 333–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Trybulec, Marcin
2019. Extending the Private Language Argument. Chinese Semiotic Studies 15:4 ► pp. 513 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.