Advertisement

Adjustment and Autonomy in Novice Second Language Writing: Reconceptualizing Voice in Language Learning

  • Ingri Dommersnes JølboEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 39)

Abstract

By studying novice second-language writing in a Norwegian classroom, this chapter highlights how language learning, particularly writing, is a process whereby a learner adjusts to new language norms and literacy practices and at the same time expresses autonomy. Second language writing is a space for identity constructions and for expressing ideas and feelings (autonomy), but these expressions must be recognized and understood in a specific cultural and social context (adjustment). Negotiation – between autonomy and adjustment – is the basis for the suggested reconceptualizing of the notion of voice discussed in this chapter. Developing voice in a new language has been associated with self-presentation and identity negotiations in text (Canagarajah 2004, pp. 266–289; Ivanič and Camps 2001), as part of authoring the self (Vitanova 2010), and as skills for expressing appropriateness and authoritativeness (Isaac 2012). In this chapter, voice is conceived as an individual positioning on a continuum between adjustment and autonomy and studied in texts written by two novice second-language writers. The writers use different strategies to develop their voice in a new language. This development is a crucial part of their language learning and involves taking part in new literacy practices.

Keywords

Second language writing Voice Somalian refugees Autonomy Adjustment Identity Literacy practices 

References

  1. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 83–96). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Berge, K. L. (2005). Studie 6: Tekstkulturer og tekstkvaliteter. In K. L. Berge, L. S. Evensen, F. Hertzberg, & W. Vagle (Eds.), Ungdommers skrivekompetanse, bind 2 (pp. 11–190). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  4. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bunch, G. C., & Willett, K. (2013). Writing to mean in middle school: Understanding how second language writers negotiate textually-rich content-area instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 141–160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canagarajah, S. (2004). Multilingual writers and the struggle for voice in academic discourse. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 266–289). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Canagarajah, S. (2015). “Blessed in my own way:” Pedagogical affordances for dialogical voice construction in multilingual student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27(0), 122–139.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2013). Teaching and researching motivation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duranti, A. (1994). From grammar to politics: Linguistic anthropology in a Western Samoan Village. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  11. Elbow, P. (2000). Everyone can write: Essays toward a hopeful theory of writing and teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Evensen, L. S. (2003). Kvalitetssikring av læringsutbyttet i norsk skriftlig (KAL-prosjektet). Sammendragsrapport juni 2003. Forskningsrådet: NTNU. http://www.forskningsradet.no/csstorage/vedlegg/evensen.pdf.
  13. Fasheh, M. (2007). Bombardment by rootless and cluster words. In C. Kumar (Ed.), Asking, we walk: The south as new political imaginary. Bangalore: Streelekha Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Folkeryd, J. W. (2006). Writing with an Attitude: Appraisal and student texts in the school subject of Swedish (PhD). Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.Google Scholar
  15. Fretheim, T. (1991). Kysset som fikk snøen til å smelte. Oslo: Cappelen Damm.Google Scholar
  16. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  17. Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 83–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00038-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holmberg, P., & Karlsson, A.-M. (2006). Grammatik med betydelse: en introduktion till funktionell grammatik (Vol. 37). Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  19. Isaac, A. 2012. Modelling voice as Appraisal and Involvement resources: The portrayal of textual identites and interpersonal relationships in the written stylistic analyses of non-native speaker, international undergraduates (PhD). University of Canberra.Google Scholar
  20. Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The Discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ivanič, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 3–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00034-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jølbo, I. D. 2016. Identitet, stemme og aktørskap i andrespråksskriving. En undersøkelse av skriving som meningsskaping blant elever med somalisk bakgrunn i norskfaget i grunnskoleopplæringen for minoritetsspråklig ungdom. (PhD), University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  23. Kristeva, J. (1986). The bounded text. In R. C. Davis (Ed.), Contemporary literary criticism (pp. 448–466). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  24. Kunnskapsdepartementet. 2010. Læreplan i norsk (NOR1-04). Utdanningsdirektoratet. http://www.udir.no/kl06/NOR1-04/.
  25. Kunnskapsdepartementet. 2013. Læreplan i norsk (NOR1-05). Utdanningsdirektoratet. http://www.udir.no/kl06/NOR1-05/
  26. Llinares, A. (2013). Systemic functional approaches to second language acquisition in school settings. In G. Mayo, M. del Pila, M. M. Adrián, M. G. Mangado, & M. Junkal (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 29–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  27. Maagerø, E. (2005). Språket som mening: innføring i funksjonell lingvistikk for studenter og lærere. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  28. Macken-Horarik, M. (2003). APPRAISAL and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 23, 285–312.  https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Magnusson, U. (2011). Skolespråk i utveckling: en-och flerspråkiga elevers bruk av grammatiska metaforer i senare skolår (PhD). Göteborg: Institutionen för svenska språket, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp. 142–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Martin, J. R. (2014). Evolving systemic functional linguistics: beyond the clause. Functional Linguistics 01/2014, 1(1):3.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-419X-1-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  33. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 35–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00036-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Menard-Warwick, J. (2014). English language teachers on the discursive faultlines: Identities, ideologies and pedagogies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  36. Mirhosseini, S.-A., & Kianfar, R. (2018). Writing the world in a foreign language. Changing English., 26, 16–29.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2018.1520076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing Others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201–230.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3588141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prior, P. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society. Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(2001), 55–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00037-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stapleton, P. (2002). Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in L2 writing: Returning the spotlight to ideas. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 177–190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00070-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tardy, C. M. (2016). Voice and identity. In P. K. Matsuda & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 349–363). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  42. Vitanova, G. (2010). Authoring the dialogic self: Gender, agency and language practices. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. White, P. R (2012). An Introductory Course in Appraisal Analysis – Appraisal: An Overview. Available: www.grammatics.com/appraisal. Accessed 26 May 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts and EducationUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations