<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com">
<title>Written Communication recent issues</title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com</link>
<description>Written Communication RSS feed -- recent issues</description>
<prism:publicationName>Written Communication</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>0741-0883</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/4/351?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/4/370?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/4/392?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/4/417?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/215?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/247?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/273?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/295?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/320?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/115?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/154?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/183?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/26/2/210?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/26/1/3?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/5?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/32?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/53?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/77?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
<image rdf:resource="http://wcx.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif" />
</channel>

<image rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif">
<title>Written Communication</title>
<url>http://wcx.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif</url>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com</link>
</image>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/4/351?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Internet Health and the 21st-Century Patient: A Rhetorical View]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/4/351?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Internet health&mdash;here, the public use of information Web sites to facilitate decision making on matters of health and illness&mdash;is a rhetorical practice, involving text and trajectories of influence. A fulsome account of it requires attention to all parts of the rhetorical triangle&mdash;the speaker, the subject matter, and the audience&mdash;yet most scholarship on Internet health focuses on the speaker only: it typically raises concerns primarily about the dangers of unreliable sources, suggesting that, where speakers are reliable and information is accurate, Internet health simply <I>empowers</I> patients. This essay turns attention to the other elements of the triangle. It argues that health information is a complex entity&mdash;not only transmitted but also transformed by the Web&mdash;and, further, that Internet-health users are a complex audience&mdash;not only informed but also transformed by the Web. Rhetorically-minded researchers are well positioned to study not simply the informed patient but rather, more comprehensively, the wired one.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Segal, J. Z.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088309342362</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Internet Health and the 21st-Century Patient: A Rhetorical View]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>369</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>351</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/4/370?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Linguistic Representation of Rhetorical Function: A Study of How Economists Present Their Knowledge Claims]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/4/370?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This article deals with how economists present their new knowledge claim in the genre of the research article. In the discipline of economics today, the claim is typically included not only in the obvious results/discussion section(s) but also in three other locations of the article: the abstract, the introduction, and the conclusion. The present study considers whether the rhetorical function of each of these three text parts has an impact on the linguistic realization of the claim. The corpus consists of 25 articles from two international journals, <I>European Economic Review</I> and <I>Journal of International Economics</I>. The investigation shows that economist authors commonly draw their readers&rsquo; attention to the claim by means of signaling expressions such as <I>Our main finding is that</I> . . . , not only in the introduction but also in the conclusion. The simple present seems to be the preferred tense in the claim sentence, even in the conclusion (<I>We find</I> . . . /<I>We argue</I> . . .). The discussion of these findings includes the views of discipline insiders, providing clear indications of the strategic nature of the research communication process.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dahl, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088309341241</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Linguistic Representation of Rhetorical Function: A Study of How Economists Present Their Knowledge Claims]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>391</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>370</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/4/392?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Interlanguage Grammar of Information Management in L1 and L2 Developing Writing]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/4/392?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In the tradition of work by Shaughnessy (1977) and Bartholomae (1980) applying concepts from second language acquisition research to developing writing, we explore the commonalities of L1 and L2 writers on the specific level of linguistic choices needed to order information within and across sentence boundaries. We propose that many of the kinds of constructions in L1 and L2 writing most difficult to categorize, labeled as errors, are in structures that are, from the writers&rsquo; perspective, principled attempts to meet their obligation of managing information. We examine 90 essays written by college students, 60 by native speakers, and 30 by nonnative speakers, and identify 360 non-target-like structures that are attempts to manage information. There are similarities in number and type of these constructions used by L1 and L2 developing writers.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kenkel, J., Yates, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088309341258</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Interlanguage Grammar of Information Management in L1 and L2 Developing Writing]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>416</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>392</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/4/417?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Scaffolding in the Writing Center: A Microanalysis of an Experienced Tutor's Verbal and Nonverbal Tutoring Strategies]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/4/417?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In this microanalysis, a university writing center conference with an experienced tutor and a student he has never met before is analyzed for the tutor&rsquo;s use of direct instruction, cognitive scaffolding, and motivational scaffolding. Along with verbal expressions of scaffolding, this analysis also considers the tutor&rsquo;s hand gestures&mdash;topic gestures, which operationalize instruction and cognitive scaffolding, and interactive gestures, which operationalize motivational scaffolding. As defined in this analysis, instruction is the most directive of the three strategies and includes telling. Also directive, cognitive scaffolding leads and supports the student in making correct and useful responses, while motivational scaffolding provides feedback and helps maintain focus on the task and motivation. The microanalysis points to the importance of the student&rsquo;s cognitive and motivational readiness to learn and the need for the student to control the agenda throughout the conference. It also contextualizes admonitions against tutor directiveness.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thompson, I.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088309342364</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Scaffolding in the Writing Center: A Microanalysis of an Experienced Tutor's Verbal and Nonverbal Tutoring Strategies]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>453</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>417</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/215?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Trial of the Expert Witness: Negotiating Credibility in Child Abuse Correspondence]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/215?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This article reports on forensic letters written by physicians specializing in identifying children who have experienced maltreatment. These writers face an extraordinary exigence in that they must provide an opinion as to whether a child has experienced abuse without specifically diagnosing abuse and thus crossing into a legal domain. Their credibility was also at issue because, in this jurisdiction, child abuse identification was not recognized as a medical subspecialty and because the status of expert witnesses is currently being challenged. Through an analysis of 72 forensic letters combined with interview data from six letter writers and five letter readers, we determined that these writers used linguistic and rhetorical strategies that allowed these letters to function as boundary objects or objects that traverse several communities of practice. The most salient strategy was the use of evaluative lexis&mdash;adjectives and adverbs which allowed for a range of interpretations and constrained those interpretations at the same time.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Schryer, C. F., Afros, E., Mian, M., Spafford, M., Lingard, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088308330767</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Trial of the Expert Witness: Negotiating Credibility in Child Abuse Correspondence]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>246</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>215</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/247?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Confronting Rhetorical Disability: A Critical Analysis of Women's Birth Plans]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/247?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Through its analysis of birth plans, documents some women create to guide their birth attendants' actions during hospital births, this article reveals the rhetorical complexity of childbirth and analyzes women's attempts to harness birth plans as tools of resistance and self-education. Asserting that technologies can both silence and give voice, the article examines women's use of technologies of writing to confront technologies of birth. The article draws on data from online childbirth narratives, a childbirth writing survey, and five women's birth plans to argue that women's silencing, or rhetorical disability, during childbirth both prompts and limits the birth plan as an effective communicative tool. The data suggest that the birth plan is not consistently effective in the ways its authors intend. Nonetheless, this analysis also demonstrates that the rhetorical failure of the birth plan can be read as, and thereby transformed into, rhetorical possibility.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hensley Owens, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088308329217</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Confronting Rhetorical Disability: A Critical Analysis of Women's Birth Plans]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>272</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>247</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/273?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Gestural Enthymemes: Delivering Movement in 18th- and 19th-Century Medical Images]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/273?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This article contributes to recent efforts to add life and movement to rhetorical studies by focusing on the representation of movement in medical texts. More specifically, this study examines medical texts, illustrations, and photographs involving movement by Johann Casper Lavater, G. B. Duchenne de Bologne, Charles Darwin, and &Eacute;tienne-Jules Marey. By identifying how figures of speech epitomize arguments, this examination follows a shift in the way arguments about movement are represented, a shift from static, visual arguments to gestural enthymemes, as they are named, arguments that are made in movements; these shifts are linked to developments in medical technologies involving photography. These arguments about and using movement attempt to "capture" or express the moments within which life, through the embodied gesture, resides. This extended understanding of the enthymeme broadens current understanding of argument to include delivery, links medical and rhetorical discursive practices, and informs how we make sense of and study the relationships between technology and rhetoric both in the past and present.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Newman, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088309335404</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Gestural Enthymemes: Delivering Movement in 18th- and 19th-Century Medical Images]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>294</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>273</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/295?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Ethical or Unethical Persuasion?: The Rhetoric of Offers to Participate in Clinical Trials]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/295?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Based on a sample of 22 oncology encounters, this article presents a discourse analysis of positive, neutral, or negative valence in the presentation of three elements of informed consent&mdash;purpose, benefits, and risks&mdash;in offers to participate in clinical trials. It is found that physicians regularly present these key elements of consent with a positive valence, perhaps blurring the distinction between clinical care and clinical research in trial offers. The authors argue that the rhetoric of trial offers constructs and reflects the complex relationships of two competing ethical frameworks&mdash;contemporary bioethics and professional medical ethics&mdash;both aimed at governing the discourse of trial offers. The authors consider the status of ethical or unethical persuasion within each framework, proposing what is called the best-option principle as the ethical principle governing trial offers within professional medical ethics.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barton, E., Eggly, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088309336936</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Ethical or Unethical Persuasion?: The Rhetoric of Offers to Participate in Clinical Trials]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>319</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>295</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/320?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[A Grounded Investigation of Genred Guidelines in Cancer Care Deliberations]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/320?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Genred documents facilitate collaboration and workplace practices in many ways&mdash;particularly in the medical workplace. This article represents a portion of a larger grounded investigation of how medical professionals invoke a wide range of rhetorical strategies when deliberating about complex patient cases during weekly, multidisciplinary deliberations called Tumor Board meetings. Specifically, the author explores the role of one key document in oncological practice, the Standard of Care document. Each Standard of Care document (one for every known cancer) presents a set of national guidelines intended to standardize the treatment of cancer. Tumor Board participants invoke these guidelines as evidence for or against particular future action. In order to better understand how genred, generalizable guidelines like Standard of Care documents afford decision making amid uncertainty, the author conducts a temporal and contextual analysis of the document's use during deliberations as well as a modified Toulminian analysis of a representative sample. Results suggest that, while on its own the document achieves an authoritative, charter-like purpose, it fails to make explicit a link between individual patients' experiences and the profession's expectations for how to act. Implications for how genred, generalizable guidelines&mdash;given the way they encourage certain ways of seeing over others&mdash;organize and authorize work are discussed, and a modified Toulminian approach to understanding the relationship between claim and evidence in multimodal texts is modeled.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Teston, C. B.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088309336937</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A Grounded Investigation of Genred Guidelines in Cancer Care Deliberations]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>348</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>320</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/115?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Marking Territory: Legislated Genres, Stakeholder Beliefs, and the Possibilities for Common Ground in the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/115?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This article reports the results of a study analyzing the interaction of administrative genres and stakeholder beliefs in the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project (MWBRRP) in New Mexico and Arizona. The author examines this interaction through an analysis of a set of 944 recorded public comments (with administrative responses) concerning the project's federally mandated Five-Year Review. To reconstruct stakeholder beliefs from this data set, the author uses filter theory, a method that works inductively from interpretive decisions made in the face of competing beliefs to produce a ranking of those beliefs' impact on the decision process, called a "filter." Results suggest that incompatibilities in stakeholder filters, combined with inappropriate generic choices, foreclosed on a possible rhetorical space for cooperation in the MWBRRP. However, some compatibility in stakeholder filters indicates common ground on which administration should focus future cooperative efforts.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Walsh, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-24</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088309332898</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Marking Territory: Legislated Genres, Stakeholder Beliefs, and the Possibilities for Common Ground in the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>153</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>115</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/154?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Suspicious Spatial Distinctions: Literacy Research With Students Across School and Community Contexts]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/154?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In what ways do students understand and document literacies within out-of-school communities in their school-sponsored writings? How can community literacy sites and public perceptions of community disrepair stimulate students to create written responses on the politics of place? These questions are at the heart of this article's investigation into relationships between writing and contexts. Drawing on research in writing and place as well as in out-of-school literacies, the author examines undergraduate writing students' investigations of literacy practices and acts of meaning making. She details how these acts can motivate students to both document and critique literacies within a local urban community in close proximity to their university setting. The author concludes by discussing how students critiqued forms of community literacies through writing, acts that have implications for the ways writing researchers can work to bridge distances (e.g., cultural, sociological, ideological, political) across school and community spaces.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kinloch, V.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-24</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088309332899</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Suspicious Spatial Distinctions: Literacy Research With Students Across School and Community Contexts]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>182</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>154</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/183?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Argumentation Schema and the Myside Bias in Written Argumentation]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/183?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This article describes a cognitive argumentation schema for written arguments and presents three empirical studies on the "myside" bias&mdash;the tendency to ignore or exclude evidence against one's position. Study 1 examined the consequences of conceding, rebutting, and denying other-side information. Rebuttal led to higher ratings of agreement and quality and better impressions of the author than when the same arguments excluded other-side information (i.e., exhibited the myside bias). In Study 2, claims had a significantly greater impact on agreement ratings and reasons had a significantly greater impact on quality ratings. When participants were given myside reasons supporting other-side claims, they acknowledged argument strength while making relatively minor changes in agreement. In Study 3, the authors found that a brief, theoretically motivated written tutorial was effective in improving undergraduate students' written argumentative essays by significantly increasing the precision of claims, improving the elaboration of reasons, and reducing the myside bias.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., Butler, J. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-24</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088309333019</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Argumentation Schema and the Myside Bias in Written Argumentation]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>209</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>183</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/26/2/210?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Written Communication Special Issue Call for Papers Writing and Medicine]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/26/2/210?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-24</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088309332047</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Written Communication Special Issue Call for Papers Writing and Medicine]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>211</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>210</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/26/1/3?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Editor's Note]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/26/1/3?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Haas, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-10</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088308328007</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Editor's Note]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>4</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/5?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Symbolic Capital in a Virtual Heterosexual Market: Abbreviation and Insertion in Italian iTV SMS]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/5?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This study analyzes gender variation in nonstandard typography&mdash;specifically, abbreviations and insertions&mdash;in mobile phone text messages (SMS) posted to a public Italian interactive television (iTV) program. All broadcast SMS were collected for a period of 2 days from the Web archive for the iTV program, and the frequency and distribution of abbreviations and insertions, as well as overall message lengths, were analyzed according to sender gender. The results reveal that females posted more and longer SMS and followed more, and more varied, nonstandard typographic practices, contrary to previous gender-related findings in the sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication literatures. A theoretically grounded explanation for these findings is developed in terms of the localized norms of a heterosexual market&mdash;and an implicit dating market&mdash;in Italian iTV SMS.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Herring, S. C., Zelenkauskaite, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-10</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088308327911</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Symbolic Capital in a Virtual Heterosexual Market: Abbreviation and Insertion in Italian iTV SMS]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>31</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>5</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/32?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Construction of Author Voice by Editorial Board Members]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/32?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Studies of blind manuscript review have illustrated that readers often form impressions of or speculate about unknown authors' identities in the manuscript review task. In this article, the authors extend that work by examining the discursive and nondiscursive features that play a role in readers' active construction of author voice. Through a survey completed by 70 editorial board members of six journals in applied linguistics and rhetoric and composition, the authors identify quantitative and qualitative trends in reviewers' practices regarding voice construction. Findings indicate that many readers do build impressions of an author's identity when reviewing anonymous manuscripts and that the rhetorical nature of the review task may lead readers to attend more to some discursive features than to others.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tardy, C. M., Matsuda, P. K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-10</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088308327269</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Construction of Author Voice by Editorial Board Members]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>52</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>32</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/53?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Positioned by Reading and Writing: Literacy Practices, Roles, and Genres in Common Occupations]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/53?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In the research project Literacy Practices in Working Life, the role played by reading and writing in common nonacademic occupations in Sweden was investigated. The results highlight not only some typical ways of using writing to frame units of work but also differences reflecting the main focus of work ("people" or "things") and overall organizing principles. This article deals with patterns in the use of writing, which may be related to modern ways of organizing work (efficiency and flexibility, personal responsibility, identification with the company, etc.). Case studies show a range of literacy practices&mdash;running from extensive and rather complicated uses of writing connected with individual responsibility to very restricted and dependent uses of reading and writing governed by a top-down organization. Examples illustrate how emerging ways of governing work through written discourse, related to the new, knowledge-based work order, create very different roles for workers.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karlsson, A.-M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-10</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088308327445</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Positioned by Reading and Writing: Literacy Practices, Roles, and Genres in Common Occupations]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>76</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>53</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/77?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Each One Teach One: The Legacy of Evangelism in Adult Literacy Education]]></title>
<link>http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/77?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Scholars of adult basic literacy curricular materials have argued that the skill-based, deficit-oriented approach of many such materials denies the interests and motivations of adult learners. Exploring why these kinds of curricular materials are prevalent in adult basic literacy education, this article focuses on the case of ProLiteracy, a nongovernmental adult basic literacy organization that grew out of missionary Frank Laubach's work in the 1930s to convert illiterate adults to Christianity and a belief in American-style capitalism. This article argues that the legacy of Laubach's evangelism continues to affect adult literacy instruction in the United States today, through the content of many of the materials in the ProLiteracy catalogue, as well as through the volunteer-based one-to-one tutoring model's positioning of low-literacy adults.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nelson Christoph, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-10</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0741088308327478</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Each One Teach One: The Legacy of Evangelism in Adult Literacy Education]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>110</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>77</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>