legitimising knowers’ multiple voices in l2 postgraduate writing
TRANSCRIPT
Legitimising Knowers’ Multiple Voices in L2 Postgraduate WritingA Case Study
CHEUNG Lok Ming EricDepartment of EnglishHong Kong Polytechnic University
“Power is Struggle.”Struggling for power through discourse (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997) to become “like-minded peers” in a society (Ivanic, 1998).
Motivations• Previously focus on dynamic variation of evaluative lexis
in postgraduate written genres
• Doctorate longitudinal study on postgraduate student’s identity construction – More than just text production• Shell-shocked students• Identity crisis in under new context• Not proficiency/inadequacy issue anymore (Ivanic, 1998)
• Current study focus on the discourse strategies and lexicogrammatical resources successful students’ use as legitimate knower – deconstructing good models
Theoretical Background• Identity and self(Clark and Ivanic, 1998)
• Stance and voice as registerial key (Hood, 2012; Hyland, 2005; Hunston, 2010)
• APPRAISAL (Martin and White, 2005)
• Discourse structure and code theory (Bernstein, 1990, 2000)
• Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) (Maton, 2000, 2009)
Knowledge Structures & Semantic GravitySemantic Gravity
Discourse Knowledge structures
Learning
Weaker
Stronger
Vertical
Horizontal
Hierarchical
Horizontal
Cumulative
Segmented
(Maton, 2009, p.46)
Legitimisation of Specialisation Codes
ER+
ER-
SR- SR+
knowledge
relativist
elite
knower
(Maton, 2010, p.45)
Legitimisation of Specialisation Codes
ER+
ER-
SR- SR+
Science
Social Sciences
Humanities
(Hood, 2011, p.125)
Analytical observation
Testimonial observations
Observer’s visibility
Observer’s invisibility
SG-, SD+
SG+, SD-
Legitimisation of Specialisation Codes
ER+
ER-
SR- SR+
Science
Social Sciences
Humanities
(Hood, 2011, p.125)
Analytical observation
Testimonial observations
Observer’s visibility
Observer’s invisibility
Building of knowledge over time
Topology of Knowers’ GazeSubR+
IR- IR+
Social
Cultivated
(Maton, 2014)SubR-
Born
Trained
Lenses of Cultivated Knowers’ GazeTOR+
IDR- IDR+
Interpretative
Rhetorical
TOR-
Elitist
Novice
(Luckett et al., 2012)
Using SFL to understand LCT• Transitivity analysis
• (Un)packing of grammatical metaphor
• Appraisal analysis• Focusing on Engagement
strategies for voice sourcing
• Explicit self-reference
• Interpersonal meaning traversing the information waves of theme-rheme (Adapted from karlmaton.com)
Knowers’ ProcessesProcess Types
Examples N
Material Meanwhile, I, and other colleagues, teach preparation courses for standardized tests…
86
Mental Understanding the meaning behind a text is difficult if we don't understand the register…
101
Behavioural I will examine how the words are used in the concordance…
27
Verbal I shall discuss the listening activities designed from the top-down interpretation view…
45
Relational Although we are unable to decipher the intonation of the comments…
29
APPRAISAL (Martin and White, 2005)
APPRAISAL
ENGAGEMENT
ATTITUDE
GRADUATION
monoglossic
heteroglossic
appreciation
judgement
force
focus
affect
ENGAGEMENT up-close
ENGAGEMENT
monoglossic
heteroglossic
expand
contract
disclaim
proclaim
entertain
attribute
acknowledge
distance
deny
counter
concur
pronounce
endorse
The Corpus (ALPC)• 90 written texts from 30 students
• 170,000 words approx (still growing)
• Assignments including research-based papers, literature reviews, commentaries (dissertations to be added)
• Transitivity analysis: how students represent themselves as they are explicitly present in the writing
• Suggesting the types of gaze students may have towards their objects of study
Knowers’ Processes
Material Behavioural Mental Verbal Relational0
20
40
60
80
100
120
86
45
101
29 27
Frequency
The Case Study: Flo• From China – Non-native English speaker
• Had teaching experience – TOEFL private tutoring in China
• Enrolled in MA English Language Teaching;
• Did not opt for dissertation but performed constantly outstanding in various coursework throughout
• Two high-graded assignments from same subject selected from the corpus
• Active participant among the volunteers
The Assignments
• Both from “Second Language Teaching”
• Requirement: Summary, Synthesis, Evaluation• Linking theories to practice
• Assignments:• 1st: Research-based paper – Solutions to avoid sentence fragments and run-ons • 2nd: Literature review – Using listening comprehension to teach oral English
Teacher Perspective• Making the theories appliable for teachers’ further
development (Knowledge Elite)
• Critical discussion is essential (Elitist lens)• Assignment topics and arguments identified and justified with
literature and data
• Independence of student writers (developing cultivated gaze with an elitist lens)
• Term papers over exams or quizzes• Reflective of academic writing/genres• Advancement of career and academic pursuit
Methods
Appraisal Analysis with UAM CorpusTool
(O’Donnell, 2008)
Examining other texts (readings, lecture notes,
etc.)
Student and teacher
interviews (15-min each)
Construction of Voice in Writing: Flo
• Note taking as unpacking device and basis of integration
• Explicit self-mention to recount on teaching experience and evaluation
• Backgrounding other voices using non-integral citations
• Foregrounding her own critique or affiliating sources with integral citations
APPRAISAL (Martin and White, 2005)
APPRAISAL
ENGAGEMENT
ATTITUDE
GRADUATION
monoglossic
heteroglossic
appreciation
judgement
force
focus
affect
ENGAGEMENT up-close
ENGAGEMENT
monoglossic
heteroglossic
expand
contract
disclaim
proclaim
entertain
attribute
acknowledge
distance
deny
counter
concur
pronounce
endorse
Voice Sourcing: ENGAGEMENT
Research Paper Literature ReviewFeature N % N %
monoglossic 119 60.4 37 27.6
heteroglossic 78 39.6 97 72.4
Total 197 100.0 134 100.0
ENGAGEMENT in Research Paper
ENGAGEMENT
monoglossic (N=119; 60.4%)
heteroglossic
expand
contract
disclaim
proclaim
entertain
attribute
acknowledge
distance (N=0; 0%)
deny (n=1; 12.5%)
counter (n=7; 87.5%)
concur (n=0; 0%)
pronounce (n=1; 20%)
endorse (n=7; 80%)
Sentence fragments and run-on sentences break the structural rule of forming a correct sentence.
Fitzpatrick and Ruscica (2000) once pointed out that
However; although; but
It is clear that
Syntactic variety can hardly be achieved
This evaluation is, of course, based on individual teaching context
(N=78; 39.6%)
(N=13; 16.7%)
(N=65; 83.3%)
(N=8; 61.5%)
(N=5; 38.5%)
(N=42; 64.6%)
(N=23; 35.4%)
(N=23; 100%)They might misunderstand sentence variety
This research indicates the strong relationship
ENGAGEMENT in Lit Review
ENGAGEMENT
monoglossic (N=37; 27.6%)
heteroglossic
expand
contract
disclaim
proclaim
entertain
attribute
acknowledge
distance (N=0; 0%)
deny (n=5; 45.5%)
counter (n=6; 54.5%)
concur (n=3; 33.3%)
pronounce (n=3; 33.3%)
endorse (n=3; 33.3%)
Spoken language is increasingly demanded by learners in EFL classroom…
Tavil (2010) points out…
It seems feasible…
However; although; but
Flowerdew and Miller show…
I found…
Teaching speaking is not just the matter of teaching how to speak fluently and accurately.
Contextural guesswork in top-down model is commonly used
(N=97; 72.4%)
(N=20; 16.7%)
(N=77; 83.3%)
(N=11; 55%)
(N=9; 45%)
(N=43; 55.8%)
(N=34; 44.2%)
(N=34; 100%)
Semantic Profile/Wave
Time
SG-, SD+
SG+, SD-
High-stake reading
High-stake writing
Unpacking (e.g. definitions, examples, observation, lectures)
Congruent, commonsense knowledge
Repacking (e.g. paraphrasing, framing concepts, research papers)
Semantic Profile: Research Paper
Time
SG-, SD+
SG+, SD-
Unpacking terms, e.g. sentence variety; relating problems to literature Summary of
study
Repeated un-/re-packing in each section with personal experience
General education context: identifying problems in student TOEFL writing
Recontextualise problem and how the solution operates in a wider context
||This study reveals ||that the students tended to combine two simple sentences with coordinating conjunction and a comma, ||or add a semicolon between two independent clauses, ||and even tried to expand the sentence into a more complex one. ||
e.g. …while students’ performance in the independent written task was of considerable problems, one of which was the frequent emergence of sentence fragments and run-on sentences.
e.g. This article has investigated the teaching approach of avoiding sentence fragments and run-on sentences to address the problem of lack of syntactic variety in the independent written task of TOEFL iBT.
Semantic Profile: Literature Review
Time
SG-, SD+
SG+, SD-
Unpacking with note-taking
Paraphrasing by locating similarities in literature
Repeated un-/re-packing in each section with personal experience
Tavil (2010), Nunan (2002) notions related to the role of listening in spoken language
Benefits and challenges of top-down processing
e.g. “Although grasping actual content… it might be difficult to realise the goal…”
e.g. “… the bottom-up processing (…) and top-down interpretation (…)(Nunan, 2002).”
e.g. “… a number of contradictions and inapplicabilities have been revealed in the practice of teaching…”
Minute-by-minute Variations
Time
SG-, SD+
SG+, SD-
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Teachers adopting the top-down model are encouraged to think about whether the teaching materials help learners to focus on top-down listening skills. In developing materials for top-down processing, it is important to teach students to use context and situation as prior knowledge of the topic to comprehend the upcoming listening task (Nunan, 2002). … Nunan (2002), for example, suggested that teachers can use students’ speech which includes their own background knowledge and personal experience as listening materials… It seems [ent] feasible in classrooms where students’ level are relatively similar, supported by Wilson (2003) while choosing listening text [concede]. In my present TOEFL training course, however [count], advanced-level students may find it so easy to respond speech from less-advanced students. Thus, the teaching and learning becomes inefficient. One possible solution is that teachers can select speech from students of higher level, which may benefit students of different levels.
High semantic density awaiting the writer to unpack.
Unpacking the concept through scholarly works.
Concede-counter pairing: contract the dialogic space by saying the approach is less feasible in a certain context.
Realign with readership with solutions.
Academic reader: Cultivated: Elitist(SubR-, IR+; TOR+, IDR+)
Teacher: Social (SubR+, IR-)
Teacher: Social
Academic reader: Cultivated: Rhetorical(SubR-, IR+; TOR+, IDR-)
Align/Disalignment strategy• [ent●(ack)● count ● grad] ^ app
• This approach sounds [ent] adoptable, but [count] in the
practice of question 6 in TOEFL speaking which includes
academic topics [grad], it is too difficult [app]...
• It seems [ent] feasible… supported by Wilson (2002)
[ack]. In my present TOEFL training course [grad], however
[count], advanced-level students may find it so easy [app]
…
Evaluate as an “insider”: Flo
This approach sounds adoptable [app: val], but in the practice
of question 6 in TOEFL speaking which includes academic
topics, it is too difficult [app: comp] for students to discuss
especially when they do not acquire the knowledge [-jud: cap]
of particular areas. Usually, it is the teacher who plays a role in
introducing the background, but in the real test, such activity
will not occur. Therefore, brainstorming of the topic sometimes
cannot help [-app: val] to provide prior knowledge.
What the Successful Writer Tells Us
• Manipulate voice sources according to the task nature
• Dynamic variation of knower’s gazes and voices within single text instance
• Sensitive to language features achieving appropriate voices• Material processes as a researcher/teacher• Mental as a commentator/critic
• Use (dis-)alignment strategies eloquently to propose new ideas
“But I don’t wanna do research…”
• In reality, Flo disengages herself from further research works – e.g. a dissertation
• Still assumes researcher and academic voice in writing
• Currently employed as Teaching Assistant in an international school
• Moving down from Elite Code (ER+, SR+) to Knower Code (ER-, SR+) to contextualise her study into practice
Thank You!