Responds to an overly narrow view of process by applying Martin Heidegger's concept of interpretation to writing. Suggests Heidegger's "forestructure" is a useful model to give depth to problems in rhetoric and composition. (MS)

Presents Martin Greenspan's four-stage (preparatory, incubation, illumination, and verification) model of the creation of new thought. Argues that this model provides a way of seeing, identifying, and understanding features of writing to learn and learning to write that other composition theories have not permitted. (RS)

Supports outlining as an invaluable tool for teaching students how to prepare to write on subjects of a logical nature and for analysis of writing of like kind. (RAE)

Delineates various conceptions of and arguments about problem solving and proposes a means for dealing with these conflicts. Argues that composition studies should strive to find a common language with which proponents of opposing views can communicate with each other. (MS)

Contends that composition studies risks a detrimental borrowing of prestige from science, a borrowing that is not only potentially misleading but also too limiting if it draws attention away from the broad spectrum of considerations inherent in composition studies. (RAE)

Argues that the antagonism which exists between rhetoricians and literary scholars derives partly from the disciplines' differing approaches to the act of writing. Suggests that literature and composition can most clearly be seen as compatible arts within the framework of the theory and history of rhetoric. (MS)

Draws an analogy between reading and writing, and between reading and responding to the world. Concludes that reading, like writing and responding to the world around us, is revisionary. (MS)