- Email: [email protected]
Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in L2 writing: Returning the spotlight to ideas
Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in L2 writing: Returning the spotlight to ideas Paul Stapleton* Kita 17 Nishi 8, Institute of Language and Cultural Studies, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0817, Japan
Abstract The issue of voice, authorial identity, or authorial presence in L2 writing has recently received considerable attention from second language researchers. Much of this research has concluded that voice is an integral part of writing and that it should, therefore, become an essential component of second language writing pedagogy. With a particular focus on many of the discursive elements of voice, authorial identity, and authorial presence isolated by this research, this paper critically assesses the body of research and claims that the case for voice in second language pedagogy has been overstated. Furthermore, it is argued that extended discussions about voice may be misleading teachers and students into believing that expressions of identity take precedence over ideas and argumentation. It is concluded that research on L2 academic writing would be better directed towards argumentation skills and ideas than voice. # 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Voice; L2 writing; Authorial identity; Authorial presence; Textual positioning; Discursive features; Interdependent cultures; Academic writing; Argumentation; First person
Introduction Recent discussions and debates in the ®eld of second language writing have involved notions about the differing rhetorical styles of learners and how these are manifested on the page. While there is little doubt that the ®rst language and culture have an in¯uence on how ideas are put into writing, there remains * Tel.: 81-11-773-0261. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Stapleton).
1060-3743/02/$ ± see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 0 6 0 - 3 7 4 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 7 0 - X
178
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
disagreement about the extent to which teachers need to consider this knowledge. Nowhere is this debate more vigorous than over the issue of voice and its associated discursive features. Voice as a metaphorical concept owes much to the thinking of Bakhtin and his work in the ®eld of linguistics. According to Wertsch (1991), Bahktin believes voice ``applies to written as well as spoken communication, and it is concerned with the broader issues of a speaking subject's perspective, conceptual horizon, intention, and world view'' (p. 51). Bahktin employs the term ``voice'' to describe how all texts are actually responses to previous utterances. In this sense, all utterances contain borrowed language, and the voice of the individual is a re¯ection of multiple voices. The concept of voice has also emerged as a key element in second language teaching in tandem with postmodern forces which urge the recognition of diversity in society. The notion that voices do not exist in isolation, but in a social milieu, recognizes that each voice can be interpreted in various ways. Voice as it pertains speci®cally to writing has been given various de®nitions; for example, Stewart (1972, cited by Bowden, 1995, in Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999), one of the earlier proponents, calls authorial voice the quality that distinguishes each human from another while Elbow (1981) describes it as writing that ``capture[s] the sound of the individual on the page'' (p. 287). Within the L2 writing community, Matsuda (2001) attempts to de®ne it more speci®cally while borrowing from Ivanic (1998) and Johnstone (1996): ``Voice is the amalgamative effect of the use of discursive and non-discursive features that language users choose, deliberately or otherwise, from socially available, yet ever changing repertoires'' (p. 40). While this de®nition may appear clear, Atkinson (2001) maintains that voice remains ``a devilishly dif®cult concept to de®ne'' (p. 110). This may be because of the ineffable qualities attributed to voice. Elbow (1999), for example, argues that the ``inherent meaning of voice . . . foregrounds a dimension of the text that is rhetorically powerful but hard to focus on: the implied and unspoken meanings that are carried in the text but that are different from the clear and overt meaning of the words'' (p. 336). Unfortunately, these broad or somewhat vague de®nitions associated with the term ``voice'' make it particularly dif®cult to critique studies that have focused on voice because authors can claim misunderstandings have occurred over de®nitions (see Atkinson, 2000; Elbow, 1999). Further confusing the issue are recent related discussions which have employed the terms ``authorial presence'' (Hyland, 2001) and ``authorial identity'' (Hirvela & Belcher, 2001; Ivanic & Camps, 2001; Tang & John, 1999). These two terms are related to voice in the sense that they often identify similar discursive features associated with individualism found in written texts. The issue of voice in second language writing has recently emerged in the context of research which claims that certain social practices of the L2 learner's culture operate as inhibitors against capturing the individualized voice and authorial identity and presence required when writing in English (Cadman, 1997; Fox, 1994; Hinkel, 1999; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999; Ramanathan & Kaplan, 1996; Wu & Rubin, 2000). They argue that interdependent or
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
179
hierarchical values may either prevent L2 learners from projecting a strong voice in their writing or diminish their presence as authors. In alignment with this view, Shen (1989), in describing the dif®culty of writing in English compared to his native Chinese, claims that learning to write in English involves a process of creating a new identity. This notion of individual identity is also echoed in Li (1996) who surveyed both Chinese and American teachers about what factors determined good writing. The ®ndings revealed that good writing for American teachers was marked by a ``writer's unique perspective on life'' (p. 93), while for the Chinese teachers, this notion was alien. Others claim that L2 learners need to be taught or at least made cognizant of certain features that enhance a writer's voice (Cadman, 1997; Hirvela & Belcher, 2001; Hyland, 2001; Ivanic, 1998; Ivanic & Camps, 2001; Matsuda, 2001; Tang & John, 1999). These studies have isolated features of voice or authorial identity and presence, which can then be measured in order to establish the extent to which L1 and L2 learners use these features and the extent to which these features serve to establish voice. Assumed within many of these studies is the notion that establishing one's voice is a necessary criterion for English writing to be considered good. In other words, without the strong presence of voice, writing is assumed to be substandard. In addition, it is assumed that the participants in these studies made conscious choices about how to present their identity on the page. However, these assumptions are often either unstated or ignored. With this backdrop, plus the invitation for comments put forth by JSLW in their double issue on voice in L2 writing, edited by Belcher and Hirvela (2001), the purpose of this paper is to look critically at this body of literature which addresses voice, authorial presence, and authorial identity in L2 writing and assess whether the suggestions arising from it are useful for improving the quality of writing in second language learners, which, in fact, is the sine qua non behind all of these studies. Because the abstract qualities of voice referred to above, such as Elbow's ``captur[ing] the sound of the individual on the page'' (p. 287), are beyond the scope of a technical critique, the present study con®nes itself to actual linguistic and organizational features of voice as well as authorial identity and presence that have been identi®ed in various studies. While this leaves out a substantial part of what constitutes voice (i.e., the resonance, sound, rhythm, liveliness, and energy of the individual), which Elbow (1981) argues cannot be pointed at on the page, it still covers a wide range of studies in L2 writing. In fact, it is contended that many L2 studies have singled out particular features of voice in writing speci®cally because teachers have a great deal of dif®culty conveying abstract ideas, such as resonance, to groups of learners with pens in their hands. Accordingly, the meaning of the term ``voice'' (hereafter merged with authorial presence and authorial identity) in this study will be similar to that given by Matsuda (2001), as noted above, with a particular focus on those discursive features that have been identi®ed in recent L2 literature which discuss voice. These studies appear to fall into two distinct types: either autobiographic and semi-ethnographic studies or linguistic studies. Below they are discussed in their respective groups.
180
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
Autobiographic and semi-ethnographic studies One of the earlier and most often cited studies concerning the voice of an author pertaining to L2 writing is Shen's autobiographical account (1989) of learning English composition. Shen describes how he had to rede®ne his Chinese identity and create a new English self in the process of learning to write in English at university. Shen focuses on the dif®culty he had in using the ®rst person singular in English because it violated his Chinese propensity towards modesty in writing: Acting upon my professor's suggestion, I intentionally tried to show my ``individuality'' and to ``glorify'' ``I'' in my papers by using as many ``I's'' as possible Ð ``I think,'' ``I believe,'' ``I see'' Ð and deliberately cut out quotations from authorities. It was rather painful to hand in such pompous (I mean immodest) papers to my instructors. (p. 460)
Besides dif®culties with the use of ``I,'' Shen explains how, in Chinese writing, the surrounding bush is cleared before attacking the real target. In reference to Kaplan's seminal paper on contrastive rhetoric (1966), Shen claims that contrary to the ``straight-line Western approach'' (p. 463) to composition, Chinese writing follows the Confucian style of ®rst ``stat[ing] the `conditions' of composition: how, why, and when the piece is being composed. All of this will serve as a proper foundation on which to build the house'' (p. 463). In so writing, Shen implies that Chinese writing is inductive, while English writing is deductive. Bringing attention to this 13-year-old paper from a journal section entitled ``Staffroom Interchange,'' consisting mostly of autobiographical musings, many of which refer to the author's earlier education in Maoist-era China, may appear unwarranted here; however, Shen's account has been used extensively, and often in detail (Atkinson, 2001; Cadman, 1997; Cai, 1999; Hirvela & Belcher, 2001; Matsuda, 2001; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999; Wu & Rubin, 2000), to support the argument that learning to write in English requires learners to project an individualized identity, or infuse their writing with voice, while stating or implying that doing so is an alien notion in some L2 cultures. While Shen's argument is certainly a compelling one with some merit at the time of writing, it is contended that the use of this account by so many studies is troublesome not only because of its subjective nature Ð ``many Chinese students whom I talked to said that they had the same or similar experiences in their initial stages of learning to write in English'' (p. 459) Ð but also because the features that Shen contrasts with English writing are assumed to be static. For example, while Shen claims that English writing is straightforward, it is well-understood that good English writing ®rst considers the audience, and if it is hostile, will take an ``unfolding approach,'' as opposed to a ``self-announcing,'' deductive one, so as not to alienate the reader at the outset to ideas that may be adversarial (Ramage & Bean, 1999). As Shen might say, ``clear the surrounding bushes before attacking the real target'' (p. 463). Supporting this view of multiple styles is Kachru (1999) who argues that even
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
181
among American writers there is considerable rhetorical variation. Interestingly, the Confucian notion of ®rst stating the ``conditions of composition'' mentioned above, dovetails nicely with standard critical thinking skills (Browne & Keeley, 1994) and argumentative writing (Toulmin, 1958) which require the writer to outline the underlying assumptions before proceeding with main points. Perhaps most troubling is not Shen's perception of a static English rhetoric, but the use of his description of Chinese rhetoric, which came from the Maoist-era (1950±1970s), by many researchers to support notions that voice is absent in the writing of some groups of L2 writers. The unquestioned acceptance of Shen's account by these studies assumes that Chinese rhetoric itself is static, despite enormous social changes that country has experienced since the death of Mao (1976). Indeed, many new understandings about rhetoric and voice have arisen since Shen wrote his paper, and, in this sense, it is unfair to criticize him; however, his paper continues to be used to support questionable contrastive notions where contrasts may, in fact, not exist. As for Shen's claims about the use of the ®rst person singular, this has been covered extensively in the literature and will be discussed more thoroughly below. Two other semi-ethnographic accounts come from Cadman (1997) and Fox (1994), who discuss their experiences with second language writers including examples of writing that lacked the qualities of authorial presence that are said to be highly regarded in English. In one example from Cadman, a PhD student, whose early thesis drafts had been relegated by her supervisor to the appendix, lamented that the problem stemmed from a culture gap. However, following some explanatory help, Cadman explains that the student ``began to put [her] own voice in [her] writing. [She] didn't know, however, how to organize the writing with [her] own opinion . . .'' (p. 9). In another example, Cadman describes a Chinese postgraduate student who was ``very confused and frightened'' (p. 9) because of unfamiliarity with academic conventions such as referencing and textual positioning. This anxiety appeared to be caused by a lack of schemata for many of the essential elements in Western scholarship. Fox also highlights the dif®culties that non-Western learners have with analytical writing. She claims that writing in English requires a voice of authority (p. xviii), and, moreover, ``[i]n most cultures, the audience expects not to be hit over the head with the point right at the beginning. But here in the U.S., I tell them, we do'' (p. 114). While these examples provide good qualitative insight into the problems experienced by some L2 learners, such semi-ethnographical and anecdotal evidence as supplied by Cadman and Fox do not pass as convincing evidence. Underlying these studies is the notion that L1 writers have a ®rm grasp on the authorial voice and textual positioning as well as other conventions of academic writing; however, no concrete contrastive evidence is supplied. More troubling are some of the details. For example, one must question the experience of the PhD student who, Cadman implies, was able to rewrite her thesis successfully largely by putting her own voice into her writing. This is questionable because it suggests form takes precedence over content (i.e., the way an author writes something is
182
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
more important than the ideas contained within). It is doubtful that L2 writing teachers would want to pass on such a message. Also unfortunate is Cadman's implication that her Chinese student was exceptional among the general student body in her ignorance of academic conventions. While the Chinese student's comments would indeed be unusual for an L1 postgraduate, L1 undergraduates would not necessarily be familiar with academic conventions such as referencing and textual positioning. Fox also writes about the expectations of an L1 audience, and her comments are similar to those made by Shen. While ®tting the stereotype of writing in English as proposed over a generation ago by Kaplan (1966), the prescriptivist claim that English rhetoric is linear and deductive (while that of many other languages is circular or non-linear) ignores unfolding structures (Ramage & Bean, 1999), mentioned earlier. It also ignores another important part of voice. Elbow (1999) claims that a voice with authority is often quiet (p. 337), leaving the message up to the reader to interpret; in other words, what is implied, sometimes even through omission, can be rhetorically powerful. Interestingly, Raimes and Zamel (1997), in response to claims that L2 learners have dif®culty with issues of audience and voice compared to their L1 counterparts, ask, ``Who are these L1 students who . . . have a relatively easier time in writing classes? They are certainly not the students who populate the composition courses at public, urban institutes [in the United States] where we teach'' (p. 80). Tangential to, and further complicating, Fox's notion are Kachru's (1997) claims that most real texts exhibit variations from the idealized pattern. Kachru explains that a new sociocultural reality, in which an Outer Circle of English speakers has emerged in countries such as India, has further broadened what is acceptable rhetoric. For example, Kachru (1999) claims that the quoting of authority in Indian rhetoric is considered a legitimate way of validating one's opinion, implying that in Anglo-American English rhetoric it is not. In another qualitative study, Hirvela and Belcher (2001), via interviews and the analysis of writing samples of three L2 graduate students, all professional writers in their L1, sought to identify voice-related issues and dilemmas and how they were resolved. In describing one particular student, Fernando, a doctoral candidate in engineering, Hirvela and Belcher explain how he had achieved some measure of publishing success in the Spanish medium and had a master's degree from an American university, yet he had been relegated to the middle level of his present university's graduate ESL writing class. This blow to Fernando's ego is described in detail by Hirvela and Belcher who conclude that ``he appeared to be in search of a voice, or an identity, that would begin to approximate the one he was moving from'' (p. 92). In interviews, Fernando describes how he believed the ®rst task in his doctoral studies was to let others know who he was (i.e., a ®gure of signi®cance at his university in Venezuela). Hirvela and Belcher continue: . . . he wanted something beyond the technical aspects of the paper to shine through. He apparently hoped that something of himself, something deeper than
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
183
the correct verb choices and rhetorical structure of an academic paper would be revealed in his texts. We believe that something extra falls in the domain of voice, identity, and self-representation. (p. 93)
This description of Fernando is troubling because the problems of one mechanical engineering student with a bruised ego are being tied to notions of voice in writing, a coupling that is inappropriate and misleading. Surely, the way to establish one's reputation in any ®eld, especially a technical discipline such as engineering, is to propose creative ideas and solutions to problems, not to impose one's identity. Concerns about whether one uses, for example, the ®rst person singular in the absence of hedging appear minor next to the ideas that are being advanced. Yet Hirvela and Belcher attempt to draw signi®cance based on Fernando's low self-esteem. In reference to the same case study, Atkinson (2001) also voices concern about whether Fernando's identity problems can be con¯ated with issues of written voice. While this section critiques only isolated examples from a few autobiographical and semi-ethnographic papers on voice in L2 writing, it is suggested that these same problems are re¯ected in much of this type of research. Speci®cally, the notion of voice as de®ned by the authors critiqued above has done one of two things: (a) assumed the rhetoric of English or the contrasted language is static and essentialized it for the purposes of highlighting different expressions of identity or (b) identi®ed an individual lacking in con®dence and then attempted to link his or her dif®culties with authorial identity in his or her writing. In effect, the foundations upon which these studies rest appear weak. Linguistic studies As mentioned above, in order to give notions of voice a more concrete pedagogical focus, some researchers have identi®ed linguistic features that are associated with a writer's identity or presence within the text. Some of these studies are described below with a focus on the problematic aspects that may arise from isolating particular elements of voice. Ivanic and Camps (2001), in their study of how six graduate students selfrepresented themselves in their writing, argue that developing critical selfawareness of the positioning power of discourses is an important language skill that should be learned at the outset of L2 writing instruction. In their study, they examined the lexical, syntactic, and rhetorical choices made by the six students, which were said to reveal how they constructed their identity. The type of voice that the students chose positioned them as ``sounding like'' members of certain social groups or as particular types of people (p. 10). One example of this positioning is said to be displayed via one's distinctive lexical choices. Citing the term ``transient and permanent identities'' used by Hazel, one of their participant students, Ivanic and Camps conclude that because
184
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
this usage is strikingly distinct from the lexical items used by other students who were studying in different areas, it located Hazel within the culture of those who are interested in a particular discipline. The choice of gender terms is another area examined by Ivanic and Camps. For example, they note that a participant student's choice of the word ``people'' as opposed to the word ``men'' reveals the author's position on gender issues. Likewise, Ivanic and Camps point to the use of the term ``being exploited'' by one of the participants in reference to natural resources. Here, Ivanic and Camps claim that the use of the passive form, along with the value-laden term ``exploited,'' carries judgments that would bring a considerably different impact from the use of the active voice with a neutral term (i.e., are disappearing). While there is little doubt that Ivanic and Camps's contentions here have some merit, the signi®cance of their assertions is questionable. Notably, although Hazel's mention of the term ``transient and permanent identities'' locates her in a particular academic community (Information Systems Engineering), it says little more than that. In any discipline, one is forced to use terminology that is particular and often specialized. Above, the term ``questionable'' is used. In academic papers, this is a word that is often used to show disagreement. If the term ``wrong'' had been used, although it has a similar meaning, the editor or reviewers would demand a change to a more appropriate word. The word ``questionable'' is deemed more appropriate for this context; in other words, a suitable choice from a selection of lexical items was made. In the language classroom, this is known as vocabulary acquisition, not authorial voice. Similarly, although the use of the word ``people'' as opposed to ``men'' may re¯ect an author's position on gender issues, it may just as likely re¯ect complete ignorance on the participant author's part regarding recent nuances that have crept into English. This is even more likely with second language learners who often come from cultures where gender issues are not discussed to the same degree as they are in others. Again, the contention here is that in vocabulary acquisition, learners need to acquire the nuances, genderbiasing and otherwise, that are embedded in words. The ®nal term discussed above, ``being exploited,'' is yet another example of the need for learners to learn the nuances of a word. However, Ivanic and Camps also extract signi®cance from the use of the passive voice here. They claim that in choosing the passive, the student author implies the responsibility of unnamed agents for the exploitation. This assessment appears accurate, but in suggesting that the author is positioning her identity via the use of the passive here seems to be cloaking old concepts in new clothing. Learners have long been taught that one of the uses of the passive is to avoid ascribing action to an entity that one wants left unknown. In other words, rather than authorial positioning via the use of the passive, the student was simply making good use of an old grammatical technique. In reference to Ivanic and Camps's ``being exploited'' example, Atkinson (2001) states, ``for me, at any rate, both the lexical item and the syntactic construction are unexceptional in this instance'' (p. 118). In essence, these examples suggest that Ivanic and Camps may simply be taking well-established concepts from conventional forms of pedagogy
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
185
(vocabulary and grammar acquisition) and associating them with a newer and perhaps trendier notion (voice). Voice and the use of ``I'' The use of the ®rst person is perhaps the most discussed discursive feature associated with voice. In both qualitative and quantitative studies, the ®rst person has been identi®ed as a key element in establishing the individual identity of an author (Hinkel, 1999; Hyland, 2001; Ivanic, 1998; Ivanic & Camps, 2001; Shen, 1989; Tang & John, 1999; Wu & Rubin, 2000). Below, three of these studies will be discussed. Tang and John (1999) propose that the ®rst person can be divided into six different identities depending on how it is used in a sentence. In academic writing samples from 27 undergraduates, they found that occurrences of the ®rst person could be categorized into six identities: representative Ð ``In English, we have words such as . . .''; guide Ð ``So far, we have said nothing about . . .''; architect Ð ``In my essay, I will examine . . .''; recounter of the research process Ð ``All of the papers I read were . . .''; opinion-holder Ð ``I would like to show that . . .''; and originator Ð ``My idea rests on the assumption that . . .'' (p. 36±37). They conclude that it is vital for students and teachers alike to be aware of the real presence of these different ways in which the first person pronoun can be used in academic writing. For students, an understanding of the choices available to them may help them decide how best to present themselves in their writing. At present, some students may be avoiding the use of the first person simply because of some vague preconceived notion that academic writing should be distant and impersonal. For teachers, the results of this study imply the need to recognize that the question is not simply whether or not the first person pronoun should be allowed or encouraged in academic writing. Rather, the issue becomes which specific type of the first person pronoun, if any, writers should use, when, and for what purpose. (p. 135)
This ®nal sentence brings to light the notion of whether and when using the ®rst person is appropriate. Hyland's study (2001), which focused on the use of ®rst person pronouns and self-citation, goes some distance towards answering these questions. His study, which examined 240 research articles in 10 leading journals covering eight disciplines in a corpus that totaled 1,400,000 words, searched for ®rst person pronouns in direct reference to the authors of the papers. The ®ndings revealed that there was a great range of self-mention among the disciplines; however, articles in the humanities and social sciences tallied many more usages of the ®rst person than those in science and engineering. At the extremes, mechanical engineering recorded the fewest instances of the ®rst person, while marketing had the most. Hyland concludes that these ®ndings suggest that ``writers in these broad domains of knowledge have very different ways of
186
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
conducting research and persuading readers to accept their results'' (p. 215). He claims that in the natural sciences, because research follows more de®ned procedures, the writer ``can downplay his or her personal role in order to highlight the phenomena under study'' (p. 216). On the other hand, in the humanities and social sciences, where ``connections are generally more particular, less precisely measurable, and less clear-cut than the hard sciences . . . successful communication depends to a larger extent on the author's ability to invoke a real writer in the text'' (p. 216). Hyland claims that the ®rst person helps writers to stake out what is their territory and thereby stamp an authorial presence on their work and gain acceptance for their claims. Similar to Tang and John (1999), Hyland concludes by suggesting that teachers raise students' consciousness about the use of the ®rst person by becoming aware themselves about the preferred patterns of expression in each discipline. According to Hyland, this can be done by encouraging students to observe and re¯ect on how the ®rst person is used when they read in their ®eld. Ivanic (1998) argues that the use of the ®rst person ``in association with knowledge claims and beliefs acknowledges the writer's responsibility for them and property rights over them'' (p. 308). While she does recognize that claim assertions made without explicitly stating subjectivity are understood to be made by the author, those who use the ®rst person are taking a different identity-driven ideological stance. Accordingly, she claims that by not using ``I,'' ``the writer is withdrawing from all responsibility for an academic essay'' (p. 306). Ivanic concludes with a familiar refrain: voice plays a signi®cant role in any type of writing and, therefore, should be part of academic writing programs. In keeping with the thrust of this critique, it will be argued here that a focus on the ®rst person is a misguided construct within the context of L2 writing pedagogy. In Hyland's impressive study, his research appears sound, but one disturbing aspect emerges in the movement from his ®ndings to the conclusion. In analyzing only articles that have been accepted in leading journals, the study fails to compare how these articles rate in terms of ®rst person usage against the many competing manuscripts that were rejected by the same journals. Without such a comparison, one cannot judge whether authorial presence has had any impact upon acceptance and, ultimately, the quality of the articles. This is a critical point because the underlying assumption in Hyland's use of ``leading'' journals is to assess the status of authorial presence as it is re¯ected in the best quality writing within a particular ®eld. While we learn that certain ®elds are more or less permissive in their use of the ®rst person than others, we do not learn whether the presence or absence of the ®rst person has been decisive in the acceptance of the article. Speci®cally, if an article which is completely devoid of ``I'' and ``we'' is submitted to a leading journal in a discipline that is permissive of ®rst person usage (e.g., marketing), are its chances of acceptance diminished? The answer is not provided by Hyland's study. Therefore, Hyland's conclusion claiming that there are preferred patterns of authorial presence is considerably weakened. Ivanic (1998) takes a similar stand to Hyland in implying that there is a connection between the projection of identity and the perceived quality of writing.
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
187
Ivanic's suggestion that a writer withdraws responsibility from an academic essay via the absence of ``I'' implies that those in the hard sciences, who according to Hyland's study (2001) use the ®rst person sparingly, as a group take less responsibility for their work. She implies this again in advocating the use of the ®rst person when she says, ``[w]riters who present themselves as knowledgemakers are also positioning themselves as having property rights, as contributors to the ®eld'' (p. 308). The unspoken but implied conclusion is that those who abstain from the ®rst person are not true contributors. However, Hyland's data clearly show that the use of ``I'' is genre speci®c. It is contended that although mechanical engineers may be spare in their use of the ®rst person when they publish in leading journals, they are still understood by their readers to be taking responsibility for their own work. Conclusion Many of the studies critiqued here have come to similar conclusions. They suggest that voice is a critical aspect of writing and that it should be brought into the mainstream of L2 writing pedagogy either via consciousness raising or through the speci®c teaching of certain features. However, the problem with extended discussions in academic journals and monographs in the L2 writing community that highlight voice is that they lend power to the notion of voice that is far greater than it deserves. It sends the message to teachers that voice is critically important, and this message, if passed down to students, may result in learners who are more concerned with identity than ideas. Seldom among the articles reviewed in this paper is there any more than a mere mention about the quality of the content, the level of abstraction, the sophistication of the argumentation, the originality, or the creativity in reference to student writing. Rather, all these elements are assumed to be either the property of specialists within the ®eld or of secondary importance. In fact, all academic papers, whether the ®rst draft in a composition class or the ®nal version to appear in a top-ranked journal, are judged ®rst on the originality and quality of the ideas within. As Swales (2001) has commented in reference to the construction of an academic authorial persona via the use of discursive features in writing, [t]he extent to which . . . such negotiated rhetorical maneuvers contribute to the establishment of a successful career as a published academic remains unclear . . .. There is, after all, some countervailing evidence to suggest that creativity, hard work, a capacity for logical argument, spatial imagination, methodological acuity, and even a ``good pair of hands'' in the laboratory may, in their various contexts, have important and basic roles to play. (p. 495)
Undoubtedly, disembodied ideas do not appear in good academic writing, and voice is infused in argumentation to a certain degree; however, it is contended that
188
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
the attempt to identify and bring to the fore the use or omission of various linguistic features such as the ®rst person (even the non-homogeneous ``I,'' Tang & John, 1999), passives, hedges, or deductiveness is secondary when measured against the level of originality and critical thinking that is displayed. The fear I have is that this overemphasis on voice will leave new learners of English with the impression that provided they write with a strong voice, teachers will praise their writing regardless of whether their arguments are poorly constructed or their reasoning weak or fallacious. I would hope that I am speaking with my own strong voice when I say that this is not the message that writing teachers should be spreading in their classes. Instead of discussing variations in how the ®rst person is employed or detailing the number of times it is acceptable to use in a certain genre, teachers need to focus on the substance of an academic paper: Are claims supported with sound reasons which are free of fallacies? Are reasons supported by sound evidence such as reasonable research studies, statistics, consequences, analogies, and, yes, personal experience? Does the author recognize alternative and counter-viewpoints and then go on to refute these? Such questions not only require critical thinking by the L2 writer, they also require considerable language support. It may be argued that if the focus of the writing class is principally on ideas, language teachers, as non-specialists, are quite limited in what they can offer in the way of advice, techniques, and criticism to learners who are studying within specialized areas. However, there still remains much that falls within the domain of good academic writing that generalist language teachers can offer. Horowitz (1990), within the context of essay assessment, lays out a detailed list of ``Categories and Subcategories of the Tasks an Essay Prompt Can Require a Student to Perform'' (p. 80). The four broad categories described within require a writer to display familiarity with (a) a concept, (b) the relation between/among concepts, (c) a process, and (d) argumentation. Subcategories within (a) include de®ning, giving examples, identifying, and explaining signi®cance; within (b) subcategories include examining similarities and differences as well as causes and effects; the subcategory in (c) requires writers to describe processes and display familiarity with narration; ®nally, in (d) the subcategory requires skills in summarizing and critical thinking. Notably, the examples provided within the subcategories of Horowitz's framework are cross-disciplinary, coming from both the social and natural sciences. In other words, although we, as language teachers, are not specialists within the ®elds of our students, we still have much to offer in terms of advice about essay structure, making connections, logical ¯ow, and the importance of illustrative examples and support for reasoning, all elements that are deeply associated with ideas. Some readers may have noticed that I have con®ned myself to using the ®rst person singular only in the conclusion of this paper. Indeed, this choice was a conscious one, and it was made fully cognizant of the power that voice has in writing. I made this choice in the hope that by introducing it in this section, somehow, readers would feel my voice as I was reaching the heart of my argument. Gratuitous use of the ®rst person earlier on may have negated this
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
189
effect. In this sense, voice exists and does have power. Despite my objection to the attention voice has been given in recent L2 research, readers who have determined upon reading this paper that its author is anti-voicist would be reaching the wrong conclusion. Voice, in my opinion, is an important part of writing and communicating, and aspects of it are essential at the higher levels of academic writing where authors are aiming to publish. However, the great emphasis that it has been accorded, as assumed by the number of published works in the L2 writing ®eld, appears to be disproportionate in relation to other aspects of writing, particularly the content contained within, and, therefore, unwarranted. It is my hope that the truly great efforts that have been expended in deciphering voice and all of its related nuances will now be turned to the most important aspect of writing: the ideas. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. He would also like to thank Rena Helms-Park for sparking the idea. He takes full responsibility for all errors or shortcomings. References Atkinson, D. (2000). On Peter Elbow's response to ``Individualism, Academic writing, and ESL Writers,'' by Vai Ramanathan and Dwight Atkinson. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 72±76. Atkinson, D. (2001). Reflections and refractions on the JSLW special issue on voice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 107±124. Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (Eds.). (2001). On voice in L2 writing [Special, guest-edited, double issue]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1/2). Bowden, D. (1995). The rise of a metaphor: ``Voice'' in composition pedagogy. Rhetoric Review, 14, 173±188. Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (1994). Asking the right questions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cadman, K. (1997). Thesis writing for international students: A question of identity? English for Specific Purposes, 16, 3±14. Cai, G. (1999). Texts in context: Understanding Chinese students' English compositions. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: The role of teachers' knowledge about text, learning, and culture (pp. 279±297). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York: Oxford University Press. Elbow, P. (1999). Individualism and the teaching of writing: Response to Vai Ramanathan and Dwight Atkinson. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 327±338. Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Hinkel, E. (1999). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2 academic writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 90±108). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 83±106.
190
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
Horowitz, D. (1990). ESL writing assessments: Contradictions and resolutions. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 71±85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207±226. Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Ivanic, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 3±33. Johnstone, B. (1996). Linguistic individual: Self-expression in language and linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. Kachru, Y. (1997). Cultural meaning and contrastive rhetoric in English education. World Englishes, 16, 337±350. Kachru, Y. (1999). Culture, context, and writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 75±89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1±20. Li, X. (1996). ``Good writing'' in cross-cultural contexts. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 35±53. Raimes, A., & Zamel, V. (1997). Response to Ramanathan and Kaplan. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 79±81. Ramage, J., & Bean, J. C. (1999). Writing arguments. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 45±75. Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Audience and voice in current composition texts: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 21±34. Shen, F. (1989). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning English composition. College Composition and Communication, 40, 459±466. Stewart, D. (1972). The authentic voice: A pre-writing approach to student writing. Dubuque, IA: Brown. Swales, J. M. (2001). Review book Disciplinary Discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 495±498. Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The ``I'' in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S23±S39. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wu, S., & Rubin, D. (2000). Evaluating the impact of collectivism and individualism on argumentative writing by Chinese and North American college students. Research in the Teaching of English, 35, 148±178.
Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in L2 writing: Returning the spotlight to ideas Paul Stapleton* Kita 17 Nishi 8, Institute of Language and Cultural Studies, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0817, Japan
Abstract The issue of voice, authorial identity, or authorial presence in L2 writing has recently received considerable attention from second language researchers. Much of this research has concluded that voice is an integral part of writing and that it should, therefore, become an essential component of second language writing pedagogy. With a particular focus on many of the discursive elements of voice, authorial identity, and authorial presence isolated by this research, this paper critically assesses the body of research and claims that the case for voice in second language pedagogy has been overstated. Furthermore, it is argued that extended discussions about voice may be misleading teachers and students into believing that expressions of identity take precedence over ideas and argumentation. It is concluded that research on L2 academic writing would be better directed towards argumentation skills and ideas than voice. # 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Voice; L2 writing; Authorial identity; Authorial presence; Textual positioning; Discursive features; Interdependent cultures; Academic writing; Argumentation; First person
Introduction Recent discussions and debates in the ®eld of second language writing have involved notions about the differing rhetorical styles of learners and how these are manifested on the page. While there is little doubt that the ®rst language and culture have an in¯uence on how ideas are put into writing, there remains * Tel.: 81-11-773-0261. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Stapleton).
1060-3743/02/$ ± see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 0 6 0 - 3 7 4 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 7 0 - X
178
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
disagreement about the extent to which teachers need to consider this knowledge. Nowhere is this debate more vigorous than over the issue of voice and its associated discursive features. Voice as a metaphorical concept owes much to the thinking of Bakhtin and his work in the ®eld of linguistics. According to Wertsch (1991), Bahktin believes voice ``applies to written as well as spoken communication, and it is concerned with the broader issues of a speaking subject's perspective, conceptual horizon, intention, and world view'' (p. 51). Bahktin employs the term ``voice'' to describe how all texts are actually responses to previous utterances. In this sense, all utterances contain borrowed language, and the voice of the individual is a re¯ection of multiple voices. The concept of voice has also emerged as a key element in second language teaching in tandem with postmodern forces which urge the recognition of diversity in society. The notion that voices do not exist in isolation, but in a social milieu, recognizes that each voice can be interpreted in various ways. Voice as it pertains speci®cally to writing has been given various de®nitions; for example, Stewart (1972, cited by Bowden, 1995, in Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999), one of the earlier proponents, calls authorial voice the quality that distinguishes each human from another while Elbow (1981) describes it as writing that ``capture[s] the sound of the individual on the page'' (p. 287). Within the L2 writing community, Matsuda (2001) attempts to de®ne it more speci®cally while borrowing from Ivanic (1998) and Johnstone (1996): ``Voice is the amalgamative effect of the use of discursive and non-discursive features that language users choose, deliberately or otherwise, from socially available, yet ever changing repertoires'' (p. 40). While this de®nition may appear clear, Atkinson (2001) maintains that voice remains ``a devilishly dif®cult concept to de®ne'' (p. 110). This may be because of the ineffable qualities attributed to voice. Elbow (1999), for example, argues that the ``inherent meaning of voice . . . foregrounds a dimension of the text that is rhetorically powerful but hard to focus on: the implied and unspoken meanings that are carried in the text but that are different from the clear and overt meaning of the words'' (p. 336). Unfortunately, these broad or somewhat vague de®nitions associated with the term ``voice'' make it particularly dif®cult to critique studies that have focused on voice because authors can claim misunderstandings have occurred over de®nitions (see Atkinson, 2000; Elbow, 1999). Further confusing the issue are recent related discussions which have employed the terms ``authorial presence'' (Hyland, 2001) and ``authorial identity'' (Hirvela & Belcher, 2001; Ivanic & Camps, 2001; Tang & John, 1999). These two terms are related to voice in the sense that they often identify similar discursive features associated with individualism found in written texts. The issue of voice in second language writing has recently emerged in the context of research which claims that certain social practices of the L2 learner's culture operate as inhibitors against capturing the individualized voice and authorial identity and presence required when writing in English (Cadman, 1997; Fox, 1994; Hinkel, 1999; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999; Ramanathan & Kaplan, 1996; Wu & Rubin, 2000). They argue that interdependent or
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
179
hierarchical values may either prevent L2 learners from projecting a strong voice in their writing or diminish their presence as authors. In alignment with this view, Shen (1989), in describing the dif®culty of writing in English compared to his native Chinese, claims that learning to write in English involves a process of creating a new identity. This notion of individual identity is also echoed in Li (1996) who surveyed both Chinese and American teachers about what factors determined good writing. The ®ndings revealed that good writing for American teachers was marked by a ``writer's unique perspective on life'' (p. 93), while for the Chinese teachers, this notion was alien. Others claim that L2 learners need to be taught or at least made cognizant of certain features that enhance a writer's voice (Cadman, 1997; Hirvela & Belcher, 2001; Hyland, 2001; Ivanic, 1998; Ivanic & Camps, 2001; Matsuda, 2001; Tang & John, 1999). These studies have isolated features of voice or authorial identity and presence, which can then be measured in order to establish the extent to which L1 and L2 learners use these features and the extent to which these features serve to establish voice. Assumed within many of these studies is the notion that establishing one's voice is a necessary criterion for English writing to be considered good. In other words, without the strong presence of voice, writing is assumed to be substandard. In addition, it is assumed that the participants in these studies made conscious choices about how to present their identity on the page. However, these assumptions are often either unstated or ignored. With this backdrop, plus the invitation for comments put forth by JSLW in their double issue on voice in L2 writing, edited by Belcher and Hirvela (2001), the purpose of this paper is to look critically at this body of literature which addresses voice, authorial presence, and authorial identity in L2 writing and assess whether the suggestions arising from it are useful for improving the quality of writing in second language learners, which, in fact, is the sine qua non behind all of these studies. Because the abstract qualities of voice referred to above, such as Elbow's ``captur[ing] the sound of the individual on the page'' (p. 287), are beyond the scope of a technical critique, the present study con®nes itself to actual linguistic and organizational features of voice as well as authorial identity and presence that have been identi®ed in various studies. While this leaves out a substantial part of what constitutes voice (i.e., the resonance, sound, rhythm, liveliness, and energy of the individual), which Elbow (1981) argues cannot be pointed at on the page, it still covers a wide range of studies in L2 writing. In fact, it is contended that many L2 studies have singled out particular features of voice in writing speci®cally because teachers have a great deal of dif®culty conveying abstract ideas, such as resonance, to groups of learners with pens in their hands. Accordingly, the meaning of the term ``voice'' (hereafter merged with authorial presence and authorial identity) in this study will be similar to that given by Matsuda (2001), as noted above, with a particular focus on those discursive features that have been identi®ed in recent L2 literature which discuss voice. These studies appear to fall into two distinct types: either autobiographic and semi-ethnographic studies or linguistic studies. Below they are discussed in their respective groups.
180
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
Autobiographic and semi-ethnographic studies One of the earlier and most often cited studies concerning the voice of an author pertaining to L2 writing is Shen's autobiographical account (1989) of learning English composition. Shen describes how he had to rede®ne his Chinese identity and create a new English self in the process of learning to write in English at university. Shen focuses on the dif®culty he had in using the ®rst person singular in English because it violated his Chinese propensity towards modesty in writing: Acting upon my professor's suggestion, I intentionally tried to show my ``individuality'' and to ``glorify'' ``I'' in my papers by using as many ``I's'' as possible Ð ``I think,'' ``I believe,'' ``I see'' Ð and deliberately cut out quotations from authorities. It was rather painful to hand in such pompous (I mean immodest) papers to my instructors. (p. 460)
Besides dif®culties with the use of ``I,'' Shen explains how, in Chinese writing, the surrounding bush is cleared before attacking the real target. In reference to Kaplan's seminal paper on contrastive rhetoric (1966), Shen claims that contrary to the ``straight-line Western approach'' (p. 463) to composition, Chinese writing follows the Confucian style of ®rst ``stat[ing] the `conditions' of composition: how, why, and when the piece is being composed. All of this will serve as a proper foundation on which to build the house'' (p. 463). In so writing, Shen implies that Chinese writing is inductive, while English writing is deductive. Bringing attention to this 13-year-old paper from a journal section entitled ``Staffroom Interchange,'' consisting mostly of autobiographical musings, many of which refer to the author's earlier education in Maoist-era China, may appear unwarranted here; however, Shen's account has been used extensively, and often in detail (Atkinson, 2001; Cadman, 1997; Cai, 1999; Hirvela & Belcher, 2001; Matsuda, 2001; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999; Wu & Rubin, 2000), to support the argument that learning to write in English requires learners to project an individualized identity, or infuse their writing with voice, while stating or implying that doing so is an alien notion in some L2 cultures. While Shen's argument is certainly a compelling one with some merit at the time of writing, it is contended that the use of this account by so many studies is troublesome not only because of its subjective nature Ð ``many Chinese students whom I talked to said that they had the same or similar experiences in their initial stages of learning to write in English'' (p. 459) Ð but also because the features that Shen contrasts with English writing are assumed to be static. For example, while Shen claims that English writing is straightforward, it is well-understood that good English writing ®rst considers the audience, and if it is hostile, will take an ``unfolding approach,'' as opposed to a ``self-announcing,'' deductive one, so as not to alienate the reader at the outset to ideas that may be adversarial (Ramage & Bean, 1999). As Shen might say, ``clear the surrounding bushes before attacking the real target'' (p. 463). Supporting this view of multiple styles is Kachru (1999) who argues that even
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
181
among American writers there is considerable rhetorical variation. Interestingly, the Confucian notion of ®rst stating the ``conditions of composition'' mentioned above, dovetails nicely with standard critical thinking skills (Browne & Keeley, 1994) and argumentative writing (Toulmin, 1958) which require the writer to outline the underlying assumptions before proceeding with main points. Perhaps most troubling is not Shen's perception of a static English rhetoric, but the use of his description of Chinese rhetoric, which came from the Maoist-era (1950±1970s), by many researchers to support notions that voice is absent in the writing of some groups of L2 writers. The unquestioned acceptance of Shen's account by these studies assumes that Chinese rhetoric itself is static, despite enormous social changes that country has experienced since the death of Mao (1976). Indeed, many new understandings about rhetoric and voice have arisen since Shen wrote his paper, and, in this sense, it is unfair to criticize him; however, his paper continues to be used to support questionable contrastive notions where contrasts may, in fact, not exist. As for Shen's claims about the use of the ®rst person singular, this has been covered extensively in the literature and will be discussed more thoroughly below. Two other semi-ethnographic accounts come from Cadman (1997) and Fox (1994), who discuss their experiences with second language writers including examples of writing that lacked the qualities of authorial presence that are said to be highly regarded in English. In one example from Cadman, a PhD student, whose early thesis drafts had been relegated by her supervisor to the appendix, lamented that the problem stemmed from a culture gap. However, following some explanatory help, Cadman explains that the student ``began to put [her] own voice in [her] writing. [She] didn't know, however, how to organize the writing with [her] own opinion . . .'' (p. 9). In another example, Cadman describes a Chinese postgraduate student who was ``very confused and frightened'' (p. 9) because of unfamiliarity with academic conventions such as referencing and textual positioning. This anxiety appeared to be caused by a lack of schemata for many of the essential elements in Western scholarship. Fox also highlights the dif®culties that non-Western learners have with analytical writing. She claims that writing in English requires a voice of authority (p. xviii), and, moreover, ``[i]n most cultures, the audience expects not to be hit over the head with the point right at the beginning. But here in the U.S., I tell them, we do'' (p. 114). While these examples provide good qualitative insight into the problems experienced by some L2 learners, such semi-ethnographical and anecdotal evidence as supplied by Cadman and Fox do not pass as convincing evidence. Underlying these studies is the notion that L1 writers have a ®rm grasp on the authorial voice and textual positioning as well as other conventions of academic writing; however, no concrete contrastive evidence is supplied. More troubling are some of the details. For example, one must question the experience of the PhD student who, Cadman implies, was able to rewrite her thesis successfully largely by putting her own voice into her writing. This is questionable because it suggests form takes precedence over content (i.e., the way an author writes something is
182
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
more important than the ideas contained within). It is doubtful that L2 writing teachers would want to pass on such a message. Also unfortunate is Cadman's implication that her Chinese student was exceptional among the general student body in her ignorance of academic conventions. While the Chinese student's comments would indeed be unusual for an L1 postgraduate, L1 undergraduates would not necessarily be familiar with academic conventions such as referencing and textual positioning. Fox also writes about the expectations of an L1 audience, and her comments are similar to those made by Shen. While ®tting the stereotype of writing in English as proposed over a generation ago by Kaplan (1966), the prescriptivist claim that English rhetoric is linear and deductive (while that of many other languages is circular or non-linear) ignores unfolding structures (Ramage & Bean, 1999), mentioned earlier. It also ignores another important part of voice. Elbow (1999) claims that a voice with authority is often quiet (p. 337), leaving the message up to the reader to interpret; in other words, what is implied, sometimes even through omission, can be rhetorically powerful. Interestingly, Raimes and Zamel (1997), in response to claims that L2 learners have dif®culty with issues of audience and voice compared to their L1 counterparts, ask, ``Who are these L1 students who . . . have a relatively easier time in writing classes? They are certainly not the students who populate the composition courses at public, urban institutes [in the United States] where we teach'' (p. 80). Tangential to, and further complicating, Fox's notion are Kachru's (1997) claims that most real texts exhibit variations from the idealized pattern. Kachru explains that a new sociocultural reality, in which an Outer Circle of English speakers has emerged in countries such as India, has further broadened what is acceptable rhetoric. For example, Kachru (1999) claims that the quoting of authority in Indian rhetoric is considered a legitimate way of validating one's opinion, implying that in Anglo-American English rhetoric it is not. In another qualitative study, Hirvela and Belcher (2001), via interviews and the analysis of writing samples of three L2 graduate students, all professional writers in their L1, sought to identify voice-related issues and dilemmas and how they were resolved. In describing one particular student, Fernando, a doctoral candidate in engineering, Hirvela and Belcher explain how he had achieved some measure of publishing success in the Spanish medium and had a master's degree from an American university, yet he had been relegated to the middle level of his present university's graduate ESL writing class. This blow to Fernando's ego is described in detail by Hirvela and Belcher who conclude that ``he appeared to be in search of a voice, or an identity, that would begin to approximate the one he was moving from'' (p. 92). In interviews, Fernando describes how he believed the ®rst task in his doctoral studies was to let others know who he was (i.e., a ®gure of signi®cance at his university in Venezuela). Hirvela and Belcher continue: . . . he wanted something beyond the technical aspects of the paper to shine through. He apparently hoped that something of himself, something deeper than
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
183
the correct verb choices and rhetorical structure of an academic paper would be revealed in his texts. We believe that something extra falls in the domain of voice, identity, and self-representation. (p. 93)
This description of Fernando is troubling because the problems of one mechanical engineering student with a bruised ego are being tied to notions of voice in writing, a coupling that is inappropriate and misleading. Surely, the way to establish one's reputation in any ®eld, especially a technical discipline such as engineering, is to propose creative ideas and solutions to problems, not to impose one's identity. Concerns about whether one uses, for example, the ®rst person singular in the absence of hedging appear minor next to the ideas that are being advanced. Yet Hirvela and Belcher attempt to draw signi®cance based on Fernando's low self-esteem. In reference to the same case study, Atkinson (2001) also voices concern about whether Fernando's identity problems can be con¯ated with issues of written voice. While this section critiques only isolated examples from a few autobiographical and semi-ethnographic papers on voice in L2 writing, it is suggested that these same problems are re¯ected in much of this type of research. Speci®cally, the notion of voice as de®ned by the authors critiqued above has done one of two things: (a) assumed the rhetoric of English or the contrasted language is static and essentialized it for the purposes of highlighting different expressions of identity or (b) identi®ed an individual lacking in con®dence and then attempted to link his or her dif®culties with authorial identity in his or her writing. In effect, the foundations upon which these studies rest appear weak. Linguistic studies As mentioned above, in order to give notions of voice a more concrete pedagogical focus, some researchers have identi®ed linguistic features that are associated with a writer's identity or presence within the text. Some of these studies are described below with a focus on the problematic aspects that may arise from isolating particular elements of voice. Ivanic and Camps (2001), in their study of how six graduate students selfrepresented themselves in their writing, argue that developing critical selfawareness of the positioning power of discourses is an important language skill that should be learned at the outset of L2 writing instruction. In their study, they examined the lexical, syntactic, and rhetorical choices made by the six students, which were said to reveal how they constructed their identity. The type of voice that the students chose positioned them as ``sounding like'' members of certain social groups or as particular types of people (p. 10). One example of this positioning is said to be displayed via one's distinctive lexical choices. Citing the term ``transient and permanent identities'' used by Hazel, one of their participant students, Ivanic and Camps conclude that because
184
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
this usage is strikingly distinct from the lexical items used by other students who were studying in different areas, it located Hazel within the culture of those who are interested in a particular discipline. The choice of gender terms is another area examined by Ivanic and Camps. For example, they note that a participant student's choice of the word ``people'' as opposed to the word ``men'' reveals the author's position on gender issues. Likewise, Ivanic and Camps point to the use of the term ``being exploited'' by one of the participants in reference to natural resources. Here, Ivanic and Camps claim that the use of the passive form, along with the value-laden term ``exploited,'' carries judgments that would bring a considerably different impact from the use of the active voice with a neutral term (i.e., are disappearing). While there is little doubt that Ivanic and Camps's contentions here have some merit, the signi®cance of their assertions is questionable. Notably, although Hazel's mention of the term ``transient and permanent identities'' locates her in a particular academic community (Information Systems Engineering), it says little more than that. In any discipline, one is forced to use terminology that is particular and often specialized. Above, the term ``questionable'' is used. In academic papers, this is a word that is often used to show disagreement. If the term ``wrong'' had been used, although it has a similar meaning, the editor or reviewers would demand a change to a more appropriate word. The word ``questionable'' is deemed more appropriate for this context; in other words, a suitable choice from a selection of lexical items was made. In the language classroom, this is known as vocabulary acquisition, not authorial voice. Similarly, although the use of the word ``people'' as opposed to ``men'' may re¯ect an author's position on gender issues, it may just as likely re¯ect complete ignorance on the participant author's part regarding recent nuances that have crept into English. This is even more likely with second language learners who often come from cultures where gender issues are not discussed to the same degree as they are in others. Again, the contention here is that in vocabulary acquisition, learners need to acquire the nuances, genderbiasing and otherwise, that are embedded in words. The ®nal term discussed above, ``being exploited,'' is yet another example of the need for learners to learn the nuances of a word. However, Ivanic and Camps also extract signi®cance from the use of the passive voice here. They claim that in choosing the passive, the student author implies the responsibility of unnamed agents for the exploitation. This assessment appears accurate, but in suggesting that the author is positioning her identity via the use of the passive here seems to be cloaking old concepts in new clothing. Learners have long been taught that one of the uses of the passive is to avoid ascribing action to an entity that one wants left unknown. In other words, rather than authorial positioning via the use of the passive, the student was simply making good use of an old grammatical technique. In reference to Ivanic and Camps's ``being exploited'' example, Atkinson (2001) states, ``for me, at any rate, both the lexical item and the syntactic construction are unexceptional in this instance'' (p. 118). In essence, these examples suggest that Ivanic and Camps may simply be taking well-established concepts from conventional forms of pedagogy
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
185
(vocabulary and grammar acquisition) and associating them with a newer and perhaps trendier notion (voice). Voice and the use of ``I'' The use of the ®rst person is perhaps the most discussed discursive feature associated with voice. In both qualitative and quantitative studies, the ®rst person has been identi®ed as a key element in establishing the individual identity of an author (Hinkel, 1999; Hyland, 2001; Ivanic, 1998; Ivanic & Camps, 2001; Shen, 1989; Tang & John, 1999; Wu & Rubin, 2000). Below, three of these studies will be discussed. Tang and John (1999) propose that the ®rst person can be divided into six different identities depending on how it is used in a sentence. In academic writing samples from 27 undergraduates, they found that occurrences of the ®rst person could be categorized into six identities: representative Ð ``In English, we have words such as . . .''; guide Ð ``So far, we have said nothing about . . .''; architect Ð ``In my essay, I will examine . . .''; recounter of the research process Ð ``All of the papers I read were . . .''; opinion-holder Ð ``I would like to show that . . .''; and originator Ð ``My idea rests on the assumption that . . .'' (p. 36±37). They conclude that it is vital for students and teachers alike to be aware of the real presence of these different ways in which the first person pronoun can be used in academic writing. For students, an understanding of the choices available to them may help them decide how best to present themselves in their writing. At present, some students may be avoiding the use of the first person simply because of some vague preconceived notion that academic writing should be distant and impersonal. For teachers, the results of this study imply the need to recognize that the question is not simply whether or not the first person pronoun should be allowed or encouraged in academic writing. Rather, the issue becomes which specific type of the first person pronoun, if any, writers should use, when, and for what purpose. (p. 135)
This ®nal sentence brings to light the notion of whether and when using the ®rst person is appropriate. Hyland's study (2001), which focused on the use of ®rst person pronouns and self-citation, goes some distance towards answering these questions. His study, which examined 240 research articles in 10 leading journals covering eight disciplines in a corpus that totaled 1,400,000 words, searched for ®rst person pronouns in direct reference to the authors of the papers. The ®ndings revealed that there was a great range of self-mention among the disciplines; however, articles in the humanities and social sciences tallied many more usages of the ®rst person than those in science and engineering. At the extremes, mechanical engineering recorded the fewest instances of the ®rst person, while marketing had the most. Hyland concludes that these ®ndings suggest that ``writers in these broad domains of knowledge have very different ways of
186
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
conducting research and persuading readers to accept their results'' (p. 215). He claims that in the natural sciences, because research follows more de®ned procedures, the writer ``can downplay his or her personal role in order to highlight the phenomena under study'' (p. 216). On the other hand, in the humanities and social sciences, where ``connections are generally more particular, less precisely measurable, and less clear-cut than the hard sciences . . . successful communication depends to a larger extent on the author's ability to invoke a real writer in the text'' (p. 216). Hyland claims that the ®rst person helps writers to stake out what is their territory and thereby stamp an authorial presence on their work and gain acceptance for their claims. Similar to Tang and John (1999), Hyland concludes by suggesting that teachers raise students' consciousness about the use of the ®rst person by becoming aware themselves about the preferred patterns of expression in each discipline. According to Hyland, this can be done by encouraging students to observe and re¯ect on how the ®rst person is used when they read in their ®eld. Ivanic (1998) argues that the use of the ®rst person ``in association with knowledge claims and beliefs acknowledges the writer's responsibility for them and property rights over them'' (p. 308). While she does recognize that claim assertions made without explicitly stating subjectivity are understood to be made by the author, those who use the ®rst person are taking a different identity-driven ideological stance. Accordingly, she claims that by not using ``I,'' ``the writer is withdrawing from all responsibility for an academic essay'' (p. 306). Ivanic concludes with a familiar refrain: voice plays a signi®cant role in any type of writing and, therefore, should be part of academic writing programs. In keeping with the thrust of this critique, it will be argued here that a focus on the ®rst person is a misguided construct within the context of L2 writing pedagogy. In Hyland's impressive study, his research appears sound, but one disturbing aspect emerges in the movement from his ®ndings to the conclusion. In analyzing only articles that have been accepted in leading journals, the study fails to compare how these articles rate in terms of ®rst person usage against the many competing manuscripts that were rejected by the same journals. Without such a comparison, one cannot judge whether authorial presence has had any impact upon acceptance and, ultimately, the quality of the articles. This is a critical point because the underlying assumption in Hyland's use of ``leading'' journals is to assess the status of authorial presence as it is re¯ected in the best quality writing within a particular ®eld. While we learn that certain ®elds are more or less permissive in their use of the ®rst person than others, we do not learn whether the presence or absence of the ®rst person has been decisive in the acceptance of the article. Speci®cally, if an article which is completely devoid of ``I'' and ``we'' is submitted to a leading journal in a discipline that is permissive of ®rst person usage (e.g., marketing), are its chances of acceptance diminished? The answer is not provided by Hyland's study. Therefore, Hyland's conclusion claiming that there are preferred patterns of authorial presence is considerably weakened. Ivanic (1998) takes a similar stand to Hyland in implying that there is a connection between the projection of identity and the perceived quality of writing.
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
187
Ivanic's suggestion that a writer withdraws responsibility from an academic essay via the absence of ``I'' implies that those in the hard sciences, who according to Hyland's study (2001) use the ®rst person sparingly, as a group take less responsibility for their work. She implies this again in advocating the use of the ®rst person when she says, ``[w]riters who present themselves as knowledgemakers are also positioning themselves as having property rights, as contributors to the ®eld'' (p. 308). The unspoken but implied conclusion is that those who abstain from the ®rst person are not true contributors. However, Hyland's data clearly show that the use of ``I'' is genre speci®c. It is contended that although mechanical engineers may be spare in their use of the ®rst person when they publish in leading journals, they are still understood by their readers to be taking responsibility for their own work. Conclusion Many of the studies critiqued here have come to similar conclusions. They suggest that voice is a critical aspect of writing and that it should be brought into the mainstream of L2 writing pedagogy either via consciousness raising or through the speci®c teaching of certain features. However, the problem with extended discussions in academic journals and monographs in the L2 writing community that highlight voice is that they lend power to the notion of voice that is far greater than it deserves. It sends the message to teachers that voice is critically important, and this message, if passed down to students, may result in learners who are more concerned with identity than ideas. Seldom among the articles reviewed in this paper is there any more than a mere mention about the quality of the content, the level of abstraction, the sophistication of the argumentation, the originality, or the creativity in reference to student writing. Rather, all these elements are assumed to be either the property of specialists within the ®eld or of secondary importance. In fact, all academic papers, whether the ®rst draft in a composition class or the ®nal version to appear in a top-ranked journal, are judged ®rst on the originality and quality of the ideas within. As Swales (2001) has commented in reference to the construction of an academic authorial persona via the use of discursive features in writing, [t]he extent to which . . . such negotiated rhetorical maneuvers contribute to the establishment of a successful career as a published academic remains unclear . . .. There is, after all, some countervailing evidence to suggest that creativity, hard work, a capacity for logical argument, spatial imagination, methodological acuity, and even a ``good pair of hands'' in the laboratory may, in their various contexts, have important and basic roles to play. (p. 495)
Undoubtedly, disembodied ideas do not appear in good academic writing, and voice is infused in argumentation to a certain degree; however, it is contended that
188
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
the attempt to identify and bring to the fore the use or omission of various linguistic features such as the ®rst person (even the non-homogeneous ``I,'' Tang & John, 1999), passives, hedges, or deductiveness is secondary when measured against the level of originality and critical thinking that is displayed. The fear I have is that this overemphasis on voice will leave new learners of English with the impression that provided they write with a strong voice, teachers will praise their writing regardless of whether their arguments are poorly constructed or their reasoning weak or fallacious. I would hope that I am speaking with my own strong voice when I say that this is not the message that writing teachers should be spreading in their classes. Instead of discussing variations in how the ®rst person is employed or detailing the number of times it is acceptable to use in a certain genre, teachers need to focus on the substance of an academic paper: Are claims supported with sound reasons which are free of fallacies? Are reasons supported by sound evidence such as reasonable research studies, statistics, consequences, analogies, and, yes, personal experience? Does the author recognize alternative and counter-viewpoints and then go on to refute these? Such questions not only require critical thinking by the L2 writer, they also require considerable language support. It may be argued that if the focus of the writing class is principally on ideas, language teachers, as non-specialists, are quite limited in what they can offer in the way of advice, techniques, and criticism to learners who are studying within specialized areas. However, there still remains much that falls within the domain of good academic writing that generalist language teachers can offer. Horowitz (1990), within the context of essay assessment, lays out a detailed list of ``Categories and Subcategories of the Tasks an Essay Prompt Can Require a Student to Perform'' (p. 80). The four broad categories described within require a writer to display familiarity with (a) a concept, (b) the relation between/among concepts, (c) a process, and (d) argumentation. Subcategories within (a) include de®ning, giving examples, identifying, and explaining signi®cance; within (b) subcategories include examining similarities and differences as well as causes and effects; the subcategory in (c) requires writers to describe processes and display familiarity with narration; ®nally, in (d) the subcategory requires skills in summarizing and critical thinking. Notably, the examples provided within the subcategories of Horowitz's framework are cross-disciplinary, coming from both the social and natural sciences. In other words, although we, as language teachers, are not specialists within the ®elds of our students, we still have much to offer in terms of advice about essay structure, making connections, logical ¯ow, and the importance of illustrative examples and support for reasoning, all elements that are deeply associated with ideas. Some readers may have noticed that I have con®ned myself to using the ®rst person singular only in the conclusion of this paper. Indeed, this choice was a conscious one, and it was made fully cognizant of the power that voice has in writing. I made this choice in the hope that by introducing it in this section, somehow, readers would feel my voice as I was reaching the heart of my argument. Gratuitous use of the ®rst person earlier on may have negated this
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
189
effect. In this sense, voice exists and does have power. Despite my objection to the attention voice has been given in recent L2 research, readers who have determined upon reading this paper that its author is anti-voicist would be reaching the wrong conclusion. Voice, in my opinion, is an important part of writing and communicating, and aspects of it are essential at the higher levels of academic writing where authors are aiming to publish. However, the great emphasis that it has been accorded, as assumed by the number of published works in the L2 writing ®eld, appears to be disproportionate in relation to other aspects of writing, particularly the content contained within, and, therefore, unwarranted. It is my hope that the truly great efforts that have been expended in deciphering voice and all of its related nuances will now be turned to the most important aspect of writing: the ideas. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. He would also like to thank Rena Helms-Park for sparking the idea. He takes full responsibility for all errors or shortcomings. References Atkinson, D. (2000). On Peter Elbow's response to ``Individualism, Academic writing, and ESL Writers,'' by Vai Ramanathan and Dwight Atkinson. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 72±76. Atkinson, D. (2001). Reflections and refractions on the JSLW special issue on voice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 107±124. Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (Eds.). (2001). On voice in L2 writing [Special, guest-edited, double issue]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1/2). Bowden, D. (1995). The rise of a metaphor: ``Voice'' in composition pedagogy. Rhetoric Review, 14, 173±188. Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (1994). Asking the right questions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cadman, K. (1997). Thesis writing for international students: A question of identity? English for Specific Purposes, 16, 3±14. Cai, G. (1999). Texts in context: Understanding Chinese students' English compositions. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: The role of teachers' knowledge about text, learning, and culture (pp. 279±297). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York: Oxford University Press. Elbow, P. (1999). Individualism and the teaching of writing: Response to Vai Ramanathan and Dwight Atkinson. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 327±338. Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Hinkel, E. (1999). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2 academic writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 90±108). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 83±106.
190
P. Stapleton / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 177±190
Horowitz, D. (1990). ESL writing assessments: Contradictions and resolutions. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 71±85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207±226. Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Ivanic, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 3±33. Johnstone, B. (1996). Linguistic individual: Self-expression in language and linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. Kachru, Y. (1997). Cultural meaning and contrastive rhetoric in English education. World Englishes, 16, 337±350. Kachru, Y. (1999). Culture, context, and writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 75±89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1±20. Li, X. (1996). ``Good writing'' in cross-cultural contexts. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 35±53. Raimes, A., & Zamel, V. (1997). Response to Ramanathan and Kaplan. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 79±81. Ramage, J., & Bean, J. C. (1999). Writing arguments. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 45±75. Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Audience and voice in current composition texts: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 21±34. Shen, F. (1989). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning English composition. College Composition and Communication, 40, 459±466. Stewart, D. (1972). The authentic voice: A pre-writing approach to student writing. Dubuque, IA: Brown. Swales, J. M. (2001). Review book Disciplinary Discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 495±498. Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The ``I'' in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S23±S39. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wu, S., & Rubin, D. (2000). Evaluating the impact of collectivism and individualism on argumentative writing by Chinese and North American college students. Research in the Teaching of English, 35, 148±178.