Abstract
Drawing on my 2018 and the current study’s findings, this paper aims to explore how second language (L2), tertiary-level students create their authorial identities by considering the dialogic nature of their textual argumentation. The approach adopted avoids the polarised conceptualization of notions of agency and structure with regards to writer identity which creates a dichotomy between content and rhetoric. I argue that the identity of an academic writer is comprised of the various, mutually constitutive ‘selves’ which authors employ during the writing process. This conceptualization entails a trichotomy of selves which are linguistically encoded in three types of voice; namely, individual (I-voice), collective (C-voice) and depersonalized (D-voice), which are interrelational, fluid, and subject to change over time and space.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Intertextuality—the term coined by Kristeva in 1966 and used by Fairclough (1992) to refer to all the ways in which a specific text relates to other texts in any way. Fairclough subdivides ‘intertextuality’ into ‘manifest intertextuality’ and ‘interdiscursivity’. ‘Manifest intertextuality’ refers to these parts of texts which can be traced to an actual source in another text and ‘interdiscursivity’ is a term for “intertextual relations to conventions” (Fairclough 1992, p. 104): a pattern of language use, rather than a sample of it.
- 2.
Abbreviated questionnaires designed to draw out L2 student-writers’ retrospective accounts of their (1) demographic background, (2) intercultural experience, (3) educational background, (4) linguistic experience, and (5) professional experience were filled out by the Ukrainian subjects. These questionnaires did not include questions related to academic writing because the Ukrainian subjects reflected on their experience with academic writing in the interviews.
- 3.
Elaborated questionnaires designed to draw out L2 student-writers’ retrospective accounts of their (1) demographic background, (2) intercultural experience, (3) educational background, (4) linguistic experience, (5) professional experience and (6) academic writing experience were filled in by all the other cultural groups.
- 4.
About 27% of the students who enroll at the Institute of English Studies at the University of Social Sciences come from Ukraine.
- 5.
The raters were full-time, master’s students of English Philology from the University of Social Sciences, who underwent the rating training session (see Lehman, 2018, pp. 149, 150 for the description of the rating session).
References
Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: Texas University Press.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Bersani, L. (1995). Homos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). Frontlines/borderposts. In A. Bammer (Ed.), Displacements: Cultural identities in question (Vol. 15, pp. 269–272). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Cherry, R. (1988). Ethos versus PERSONA: Self-representation in written discourse. Written Communication, 5, 251–276.
Clark, R., & Ivanič, R. (1997). The politics of writing. London: Routledge.
Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture: A social psychological synthesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
DiPardo, A., Storms, B. A., & Selland, M. (2011). Seeing voices: Assessing writerly stance in the NWP analytic writing continuum. Assessing Writing, 16, 170–188.
Elbow, P. (1994). Voice and writing. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse. London: Routledge.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gruber, H., Rheindor, M., Wetschanow, K., Reisigl, M., Muntigl, P., & Czinglar, C. (2006). Genre, Habitus Und Wissenschaftliches Schreiben - eine empirische Untersuchung studentischer Texte. Wien: LIT-Verlag.
Hall, S. (1995). New cultures for old. In D. Massey & P. Jess (Eds.), A place in the world? Places, cultures and globalization (pp. 175–215). Oxford: The Open University.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Harwood, N. (2008). Citers ‘use of citees’ names: Findings from a qualitative, interview-based study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 1007–1011.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(2), 207–226.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Kristeva, J. (1969). Sémiotikè: recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Points.
Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Sociocultural theory and the dialectics of L2 learner autonomy/agency. In P. Benson & L. Cooker (Eds.), The applied linguistic individual: Sociocultural approaches to identity, agency and autonomy (pp. 17–31). Sheffield: Equinox.
Lehman, I. M. (2018). Authorial presence in English academic texts: A comparative study of student writing across cultures and disciplines. Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien: Peter Lang Verlag.
Martin, J., & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London, UK: Palgrave.
Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implication for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 35–53.
McGuire W. J. & McGuire C. V. (1981). The spontaneous self-concept as affected by personal distinctiveness. In M. D. Lynch, A. A. Noram-Hebeisen & K. Gergen (Eds.), Self-Concept : Advances in theory and research (pp. 147–171). New York: Ballinger.
O’Donnel, P., & Con Davis, R. (1989). Echo chambers: Figuring voice in modern narrative. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Orr, M. (2008). Intertextuality. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman.
Roeser, R. W., Peck, S. C., & Nasir, N. S. (2006). Self and identity processes in school motivation and achievement. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 391–424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). Genre awareness and rhetorical appropriacy: Manipulation of information structure by NS and NNS scientists in the international conference setting. English for Specific Purposes, 24(1), 41–64.
Slugoski, B. R., & Ginsburg, G. P. (1989). Ego identity and explanatory speech. In J. Shotter & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Texts of identity (pp. 36–55). London: Sage.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Sage Journals, 7(2), 225–246.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1: Voice Rubric
Voice markers | Explanation | Examples |
---|---|---|
‘I’ voice markers | ||
Singular self-mentions | Explicit indication of writer’s presence through the expression of her/his opinion, preferences and intentions I + opinion verb expressions of perception + me my + noun phrase (opinion) I + intention verb my + noun phrase (intention) | I—think/believe/suppose/know/realize/find/guess/consider/hope It is—clear/certain/obvious to me It—seems/appears to me my—view/opinion is… I—plan/intend to/want my goal/purpose/aim is… |
Boosters | Emphasize author’s certainty | (Adverbials) certainly, without doubt, for sure |
1st, 2nd and 3rd conditionals* *Modal verbs in conditional sentences carry full ideational weight, which is the use of language to represent experience and ideas, and individual perceptions of the world. The communicative purpose of modal verbs in this use is to align the reader to the writer’s point of view and her/his value judgement as expressed in the text | express the author’s strength of opinion about text content | If Britain leaves the EU, it will affect the other 27 countries If you studied harder, you would get better grades If you hadn’t gone to the conference you wouldn’t have met Prof. Smith |
Attitude markers | Express writer’s attitude towards text content | Arguably, unfortunately, undoubtedly |
‘C’ voice marker | ||
Plural self-mentions | Make explicit reference to the author(s) and reader’s relationship We + opinion verb expressions of perception + us our + noun phrase | We—think/believe/suppose/know/realize/find/guess/consider/hope It is clear/certain/obvious to us It seems/appears to us Our belief in the reliability of the findings |
Reader engagement markers | Make explicit appeals to the reader | Consider, note that, you can see, you will agree that |
Frame markers | Express structural relations within the text; often indicating sequences and stages in order to guide the reader in the process of reading and understanding the writer’s intention | First/second/third, finally, to conclude |
Endophoric markers | Refer to information in the surrounding text | As stated previously, this idea, as a result |
Transitions | Express semantic relations between clauses | Time relations: e.g. after, before, by the time, meanwhile; Listing additional ideas: e.g. most importantly, one/another reason is, also, additionally, but, thus, and, moreover; Giving examples: e.g. as an illustration, specifically, such as, namely, in other words Contrast: e.g. however, although, but |
Exophoric markers | Refer to information from other texts | See Fig. 1, as noted in, following on from Krashen’s notion of affective filter |
Code glosses | Elaborate propositional meaning | E.g. that is to say |
‘CI’ voice markers | ||
Boosters | Indicate close dialogue between reader and writer | (Adverbials) certainly, without doubt, for sure |
Attitude markers | Invite reader’s acceptance of the proposition | (Adverbials) arguably, unfortunately, undoubtedly |
‘CD’ voice markers | ||
Hedges | Invite the reader to consider the veracity of the proposition | Modal verbs: might, may, could, can Adverbs: e.g. maybe, possibly, perhaps, it is possible that It is + adverb + that: It is possible that … It is likely that … |
‘D’ voice markers | ||
Pronoun/collective noun references | 2nd and 3rd person singular and plural one, you, he, she, they, people + opinion verb expressions of perception + him, her, them your, his, her, their, people’s + noun phrase | One, you, he, she, they, (*people) think/believe/suppose/know/realize/find/guess/consider/hope It is clear/certain/obvious to him, her, them It seems/appears to him, her, them The internet has improved your, his, her, their, (*people’s) ability to communicate |
Passive forms | Obfuscate and conceal writer’s presence | it + to be - believed/thought/believed/expected/considered It is considered as one of the most important discoveries of modern times. |
Exophoric references | Refer to information outside the text | Direct and indirect speech X states/argues/thinks, according to Y e.g. Smith argues that, “the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach” |
Hedges | Lessen degree of author’s commitment to propositions | Modal verbs: might, may, could, can Adverbs: e.g. maybe, possibly, perhaps, it is possible that It is + adverb + that: It is possible that … It is likely that … |
Appendix 2: Writing Task
American Dream or American Nightmare?
The United States of America has long been considered as ‘the land of opportunity’. The ‘American Dream’ has always promised people that they can realize their personal and professional ambitions by hard work and having the appropriate skills and abilities despite their gender, age or ethnicity. People from all over the world have gone to America in order to realize their personal ‘American Dream’. However, today people are beginning to ask whether the dream has become a nightmare.
In a recent survey of African Americans, “59 percent…agreed that the American Dream has become impossible for most Americans to achieve” [Dallas Morning News, 4/30/15]. For whatever reason, they think that for many people the ‘American Dream’ is unattainable. Other people are more specific; they think that the ‘American Dream’ is out of reach to many due to factors such as, racism, globalization, multiculturalism, and a decline in family values. In short, they believe that the ‘American Dream’ has become a nightmare.
In a 250-word essay express your opinion on whether immigrants coming to the US can still find the ‘American Dream’ or whether the ‘American Dream’ has become the ‘American Nightmare’.
Appendix 3: Questionnaire Questions
Questionnaire includes points related to (1) demographic background, (2) intercultural experience, (3) educational background, (4) linguistic experience, (5) professional experience and (6) Academic Writing experience.
Demographic background
-
1.
Age:
-
2.
Nationality:
-
3.
Profession:
-
4.
Gender:
-
5.
Parents’ profession:
Intercultural experience
-
1.
How long have you spent in countries other than your native country? Specify the country and the length of time.
-
2.
Which national culture do you most identify with?
-
3.
Have you ever lived in an English speaking country? Please specify.
Educational background
-
1.
What subjects have you studied post high-school?
-
2.
What academic course are you following now?
-
3.
Why did you choose this course of studies?
-
4.
Did you have a 2nd or 3rd choice of course of studies? If so, what?
Linguistic experience
-
1.
How long have you been learning English?
-
2.
Do you speak any other language(s) other than your L1 and English?
-
3.
Have you taken any English language exams in your life? Which ones? What final grade did you achieve?
-
4.
How would you assess your present knowledge of your foreign languages? Please list and rate your languages following the levels in the grid below.
Professional experience
-
1.
What occupational experience have you had? List your jobs and say whether they were part-time or full-time and how long you did this job for.
-
1.
Did you use English in any of these jobs?
-
2.
If yes, was your English language level sufficient for you to do the job well?
-
3.
What profession are you hoping to do in the future?
-
4.
Do you think English will be necessary for you in this job?
-
5.
Which language skills do you think will be necessary for you to have in order to do this job?
-
6.
Is your current level of English sufficient for you to be successful in this job?
Appendix 4: Interview Questions
Interviews include the discussion of students’ academic writing experience.
-
1.
At what age did you begin writing tasks at school?
-
2.
Have you ever been explicitly taught writing skills?
-
3.
What types of writing activities did you perform at different levels of your education?
-
4.
Was this work assessed/evaluated by your teachers, external examination boards or others (specify)?
-
5.
If so, what grade did you receive?
-
6.
Did you find these writing tasks interesting, challenging?
-
7.
Do you think you are good at writing academic tasks in your native language? Why? Why not? a. What are your strengths? b. What are your weaknesses?
-
8.
At what age or stage in your education did you first start writing in English?
-
9.
Have you ever been explicitly taught writing skills in English?
-
10.
What types of writing activities have you done in English? Was this work assessed/evaluated by your teachers, external examination boards or others (specify)? If so, what grade did you receive?
-
11.
Did you find these writing tasks interesting, challenging?
-
12.
Do you think you are good at writing academic tasks in your English? Why? Why not? a. What are your strengths? b. What are your weaknesses?
-
13.
Have you ever written in English without it being required for a course, exam etc.? If so what? Why?
-
14.
Can you compare doing academic writing in your native language to that in English? Do you prefer to do academic writing in L1 or L2? Which language do you most often write in now (if applicable)?
-
15.
Do you think academic writing in English helps you learn the language? If yes, how?
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lehman, I.M. (2020). Towards an Integrative Model of Writer Identity Through the Conceptualization of Dialogicality in Academic Text. In: Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (eds) Cultural Conceptualizations in Translation and Language Applications. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43336-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43336-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43335-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43336-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)