@inbook{58968,
  abstract     = {{Clashes of heterogeneous discourses are conceptualized differently within the 
various strands of discourse research. To simplify, one can speak of synthesizing positions 
of merging discourses on the one hand and difference-based positions of heterogeneous 
discourses on the other. The latter position, which goes far beyond intra- and extradiscursive conflicts that can ultimately be resolved, can be related to Jean-Francois Lyotard‘s 
reflections on the incommensurability of discourses: Starting from an understanding that 
every discourse has certain inner-discursive rules and that when heterogeneous discourses 
meet, these rules come into conflict, questions arise about the possibilities and limits of 
how different discourses deal with each other and their potential incommensurability. The 
challenges of the encounters between heterogeneous discourses can be comprehensively 
and productively examined during the ‚Third Reich‘ and in relation to the genre of resistance ‚Tarnschrift‘. In these camouflage writings, heterogeneous discourses collide in a confined textual space, as the camouflage text corresponded to the rules of the prevailing Nazi 
discourse and the camouflaged text embedded in it corresponds to the rules of resistance 
discourses. This textual juxtaposition of communicative expressions of different discourses 
allows us to analyse procedures of discursive disruption, irritation and incommensurability. Starting from a perspective based on Lyotard‘s considerations, camouflage writings are 
therefore to be analysed and reflected upon as a genre of discursive disruption}},
  author       = {{Markewitz, Friedrich}},
  booktitle    = {{Discourses in/of Disruption}},
  editor       = {{Meier-Vieracker, Simon and Bonacchi, Silvia and Acke, Hanna and Dang-Anh, Mark and Warnke, Ingo}},
  keywords     = {{camouflage writing, incommensurability, "third reich", resistance}},
  pages        = {{39--50}},
  publisher    = {{IDS}},
  title        = {{{Tarnschriften als Widerstandsgattung der diskursiven Disruption}}},
  volume       = {{9}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}

@article{28696,
  abstract     = {{The aim of the present study is to bring new momentum into research on students’
understanding of academic writing. Drawing on the idea that metaphors give insight into
implicit conceptions of abstract entities and processes, we developed a detailed and
differentiated set of conceptual metaphors that can be used to study student ideas about
writing in research, teaching, and interventions. A large sample of undergraduates produced
their everyday understanding of writing in short texts beginning with a self-generated
metaphor. Based on theories from cognitive linguistics, the conceptual metaphors in their
texts were analyzed in terms of their action quality (transitivity) and spatiality (spatial
primitives). The undergraduates’ conceptualizations were very heterogeneous. Most
metaphors depart strongly from scientific approaches to academic writing within cognitive
psychology and sociocultural theory. Roughly half of the metaphors could be collated to one
of four metaphor systems. Depending on the desired degree of abstraction or concreteness,
conceptual metaphors or metaphor systems can be employed in further studies to illuminate
thinking about writing.}},
  author       = {{Scharlau, Ingrid and Karsten, Andrea and Rohlfing, Katharina}},
  issn         = {{2030-1006}},
  journal      = {{Journal of Writing Research}},
  keywords     = {{metaphor analysis, academic writing, transitivity, spatial primitives}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{493--529}},
  title        = {{{Building, emptying out, or dreaming? Action structures and space in undergraduates’ metaphors of academic writing}}},
  doi          = {{10.17239/jowr-2021.12.03.01}},
  volume       = {{12}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}

@article{20543,
  author       = {{Nguyen Quang Do, Lisa and Krüger, Stefan and Hill, Patrick and Ali, Karim and Bodden, Eric}},
  issn         = {{2326-3881}},
  journal      = {{IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering}},
  keywords     = {{Debugging, Static analysis, Tools, Computer bugs, Standards, Writing, Encoding, Testing and Debugging, Program analysis, Development tools, Integrated environments, Graphical environments, Usability testing}},
  pages        = {{1--1}},
  title        = {{{Debugging Static Analysis}}},
  doi          = {{10.1109/TSE.2018.2868349}},
  year         = {{2018}},
}

@article{32165,
  abstract     = {{This article presents analyses of excerpts from a study on writing conducted in a dialogical perspective. The study’s material was collected by the auto-confrontation method: writers were videotaped during their work and afterwards confronted with their writing activities. Microanalysis of the material attends to how inner dialogues during writing are “refracted” (Voloshinov) in auto-confrontation. Bakhtin’s notion of the chronotope (time-and-space) as the main tool of analysis helps to discern the changing contexts and position constellations utterances are valid for. It thus sheds light on the positioning movements performed by the writing selves through language. The analyses show various utterance movements traversing the chronotopes involved, ranging from refractions of movements between the writers’ inner dialogues and their texts to retrospective imperatives with a developmental potential. This “dialogical volume” of speech activity presenting itself in writing can contribute to our understanding of the interplay of language and the self.}},
  author       = {{Karsten, Andrea}},
  issn         = {{0959-3543}},
  journal      = {{Theory & Psychology}},
  keywords     = {{auto-confrontation, chronotope, inner dialogue, microanalysis, positioning, writing}},
  number       = {{4}},
  pages        = {{479--503}},
  publisher    = {{SAGE Publications}},
  title        = {{{Writing: Movements of the self}}},
  doi          = {{10.1177/0959354314541020}},
  volume       = {{24}},
  year         = {{2014}},
}

@article{32168,
  abstract     = {{Based on a cultural-historical and dialogical conceptualization of thinking and speech as formulated in Soviet psychology and linguistics of the 1920s and 1930s, this article seeks to reflect upon a congruent way of investigating writing as a cognitive and communicative activity. What has to be taken into account when developing a methodology for writing research from a cultural-historical and dialogical perspective? Firstly, writing is not separated from other forms of speech activity like interpersonal and intrapersonal speech. Thus, inner dialogue and the addressed character of writing become crucial notions to be methodologically considered. Secondly, contrary to current writing research traditions such as literacy studies and studies of the writing process in cognitive psychology, both individual writing processes and socio-cultural writing practices as well as their relationship must be considered. These reflections lead towards the conclusion that writing is not fully accessible to external observation or to introspection. In consequence, a suggestion of a methodological approach is given, inspired by the activity theoretically informed method of auto-confrontation. The proposed method consists of two phases: a) videotaping of a writing episode and b) co-analysis of the videotaped writing episode in dialogue between writer and researcher. The second phase transfers the writing activity into a new context where understanding it becomes possible. The co-analysis makes involved positions audible: positions of the writer and of the researcher, of real and imagined readers as well as intersubjective and community-related positions. Finally, implications of the proposed research setting are discussed and evaluated with regard to the theoretical grounding. An instance of the methodology to be sketched in this article was developed in the context of the author’s dissertation project in preparation at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, Germany with the working title «Writing processes and writing practices. A conceptualization from a dialogical perspective». The project is funded by scholarships of Universität Bayern e.V. and Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität.}},
  author       = {{Karsten, Andrea}},
  journal      = {{Cultural-Historical Psychology}},
  keywords     = {{writing, writing research, dialogue, dialogical perspective, auto-confrontation}},
  pages        = {{91 -- 98}},
  title        = {{{Towards Cultural-Historical and Dialogical Writing Research – Some Methodological Considerations}}},
  volume       = {{4}},
  year         = {{2010}},
}