Getting interpersonal on a university entrance exam impromptu writing task

Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 90–98

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of English for Academic Purposes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

Getting interpersonal on a university entrance exam impromptu writing task Gordon Myskow a, *, Kana Gordon b,1 a b

Department of Economics, Toyo University, 112-8606 Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan Kanto International Senior High School, 151-0071 Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, Japan

a b s t r a c t Keywords: Academic writing Appraisal theory University EFL entrance exam Writing prompt

This article explores the types of audience engagement strategies used by a Japanese secondary school student in an after school course preparing for a high-stakes impromptu academic writing task on a university entrance exam. The study uses appraisal theorydthe branch of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) concerned with the patterning of interpersonal meaning in discoursedto track the changes in the engagement strategies used by the student. The article also details various instructional techniques employed by the teacher to help students gain insights into the beliefs and values of the university’s admissions officers. The findings show the participant’s post-test to be more overtly dialogized than the pre-test with an increase in both the amount and variation of engagement strategies. The study also explores possible pedagogical implications for reader-oriented instructional approaches. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

There is a growing interest in the role of the reader in academic writing and the interpersonal strategies used by writers to engage real or imagined audiences (e.g., Biber, 2006; Hood, 2010; Hyland, 2004, 2005; Johns, 1997; Prior, 1995; Swales, 1990, 2004; Thompson, 2001). Much of this discussion has been focused in advanced academic literacy settings (e.g., Swales, 2004; Tardy, 2009; Thompson, 2001) or undergraduate programs in which the subject-area classes were taught mainly in English (e.g., Johns, 1997; Leki, 2007; Prior, 1995; Swales, 1990, 2004). This article complements the growing body of literature on the social dimension of academic writing by exploring a reader-oriented approach in a senior high school EFL context. The study was conducted in an after school course aimed at preparing students for a high-stakes university entrance exam of a liberal arts department at a prominent Japanese university. Martin and White’s (2005) description of appraisal theorydthe dimension of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) concerned with the patterning of interpersonal meaning in discoursedwas used to analyze the types of linguistic resources the student in the study used to engage with the envisioned readers of his texts. Since this study focuses on a single student, the article does not aim to make generalizable claims about the development of audience engagement strategies for other writers in other contexts. Instead, through a detailed analysis of a relatively small sample of data comprising the student’s pre- and post-tests, a teacher diary and a follow-up interview with the student, this study focuses on issues in the implementation of a reader-oriented approach and discusses several possible pedagogical implications. 1. Analyzing interpersonal engagement: appraisal theory Appraisal theory, as developed by Martin and White (2005), is a theorization of interpersonal meaning in written and spoken texts (see also Coffin & Hewings, 2004; Hood, 2010; Macken-Horarik, 2003; Martin & Rose, 2003). According to Martin * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ8190 9808 4472. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (G. Myskow), [email protected] (K. Gordon). 1 Permanent address: 4993 NW Lavender Cir., Corvallis, OR 97330, USA. 1475-1585/$ – see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.009

G. Myskow, K. Gordon / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 90–98

91

and White (2005), appraisal theory is most closely related to concurrent literature on the concept of stance from other orientations to language (e.g., Biber, 2006; Hunston & Thompson, 2000). The theory provides a comprehensive modeling of a wide range of interpersonal strategies and details how these resources constitute the meaning potential taken up by writers/speakers as they “adopt stances toward both the material they present and those with whom they communicate” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 1). In doing so the theory offers rich insights into the specific ways that “writers/speakers construe for themselves particular authorial identities or personae, with how they align themselves with actual or potential respondents, and with how they construct for their text an intended or ideal audience” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 1). The appraisal system is a component within the broader theorization of systemic functional linguistics (see Halliday, 1994). Early work in SFL on the interpersonal function of language focused mainly on spoken discourse (Eggins & Slade, 1997). But there has also been a growing interest in the interpersonal resources used by writers of a variety of monologic texts including narratives (Martin & Rose, 2003), news articles (Martin & White, 2005) and research article introductions (Hood, 2010). The most comprehensive description of appraisal theory is Martin and White’s (2005) seminal work: “The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English”. Except where indicated otherwise, the description of appraisal theory used here will be drawn from this source. The appraisal system comprises three broad interacting domains: attitude, graduation and engagement. Attitude includes the resources for construing emotional responses (affect), assessing the behavior of others (judgment) and ascribing value to things or processes (appreciation). Graduation refers to the gradability or the upscaling/downscaling of an assertion. Through graduation, attitudinal values and resources for engagement can be adjusted in terms of the degree of force or focus of the proposition (see Hood, 2010, for a recent elaboration of the graduation system). Engagement brings together a wide variety of linguistic resources that have been described in the literature under headings such as “hedging” (Hyland, 1998) “concession” (e.g., Thompson & Zhou, 2000), “modality” (e.g., Palmer, 1986) as well as techniques for referencing other texts (e.g., CaldasCoulthard, 1994). In the engagement system, these features function collectively as “the linguistic resources by which speakers/writers adopt a stance toward the value positions being put forward by the text” (p. 92). A key concept underlying the engagement system is Bakhtin’s view that all spoken or written texts are in some way dialogic. In the act of speaking or writing, one is always responding to, or taking up in some way, prior utterances on the same theme and simultaneously anticipating the responses of imagined or envisioned readers/listeners (Martin & White, 2005, p. 92). In keeping with this view, a primary goal of engagement analysis is to look for clues that speakers/writers provide as to how they expect their audience to respond to the propositions being advanced in a text. The analyst is interested in “whether the value position being put forward is one that can be taken for granted for this particular audience, as one which is in some way novel, problematic or contentious, or as one which is likely to be questioned, resisted or rejected” (p. 93). Following Bakhtin (1981) Martin and White distinguish between heteroglossic and monoglossic statements to categorize the ways in which speakers/writers construe the envisioned beliefs and values of their audience. This distinction represents the basic organizing principle of the engagement system and any proposition can be classified as belonging to one of these two categories. In a heteroglossic statement, there is an overt marker that reveals a readership with diverse viewpoints toward the proposition being advanced. Consider the following example of a heteroglossic statement: Some people are critical of the government’s position. In this proposition the author distances him/herself somewhat from a negative evaluation of the government’s position by attributing it to an unspecified group (i.e., some people). In doing so, the author construes a reader who may find a categorical statement evaluating the government’s position potentially problematic or contentious. By overtly recognizing these other voices, the author positions the statement within “a heteroglossic environment populated by different competing views” (p. 99). In the following monoglossic statement however, there is no overt recognition of other viewpoints or alternative voices: The government’s position is wrong. As Martin and White (2005) point out, such bare, categorical assertions have traditionally been described as “intersubjectively neutral, objective or even factual” (p. 99). But in appraisal theory, these propositions are still dialogic in so far as they construe an addressee that shares much likemindedness with the writer. By using categorical propositions, the writer reveals an intended readership that will readily align itself with the propositions being put forward. Thus there is little rhetorical work required on the part of the author to convince or win over the audience. Martin and White also offer a useful distinction between heteroglossic statements that are “expansive” and those that are “contractive”. The former actively makes allowances for other views, and thereby expands the heteroglossic backdrop of voices in the text. Dialogical contraction also explicitly references the utterances and viewpoints of external voices. However, unlike dialogical expansion, contraction closes down the dialogical space by actively challenging or restricting the scope of alternative voices (Martin & White, 2005, p. 103). Other resources of the engagement system that have relevance to this particular study will be described in the results section. 2. Pedagogical approaches to developing audience awareness One research technique that has been adapted as an instructional approach for developing audience awareness is ethnographic research (Johns, 1997; Swales, 1990). This approach positions students as researchers, helping them develop the

92

G. Myskow, K. Gordon / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 90–98

kinds of analytical skills that will enable them to gain insights into the underlying ideologies and rhetorical tendencies of specific academic communities. It can involve investigative methods including observations of the contexts in which academic genres are used as well as interviews with community members (Johns, 1997). Swales (1990) recommends textual awareness raising techniques to familiarize learners with the ways language is used in different disciplinary settings to fulfill specific rhetorical goals. Using this technique, learners conduct small-scale surveys of the rhetorical and linguistic practices of their own fields of study and compare the results of their analyses with other students in the class, noting similarities and differences and discussing reasons for them. Paltridge (2001) recommends having students analyze texts written for different audiences to raise awareness of the ways that social considerations of audience and purpose can affect how information is represented. In a similar context to the present study, Myskow and Gordon (2010) show how they made use of focused questions to guide secondary school students as they collected information about the beliefs and values of university administrators in preparation for writing personal statements for the universities they hoped to attend. These questions encouraged students to examine the university’s mission statement and gather information about particular professors, including any books or articles they may have written. But unlike the present study, the aim of Myskow and Gordon’s (2010) study was primarily to display the types of ethnographic techniques used in their context and therefore did not include a systematic analysis of the strategies used by learners to engage their envisioned audiences. Moreover, the focus of Myskow and Gordon (2010) was on the university application genre rather than impromptu writing exam tasks. 3. Methods 3.1. Purpose of the study In recent years, there has been a trend toward the use of impromptu writing tasks for the purposes of mandatory writing assessment in the postsecondary school context (see White, 1994 for a discussion of the various factors contributing to this trend). Considering the high-stakes nature of many of these writing exams, and how the lives of these test-takers “are affected, sometimes greatly, by the results” (Hamp-Lyons, 1991, p. 328), it is worthwhile examining, from a variety of perspectives, the many pedagogical issues that arise when preparing students for these tests. The purpose of the present study is to explore the specific issues that arose when using a reader-oriented approach to prepare a student for a timedimpromptu writing task on a high-stakes university entrance examination. 3.2. Context and participants The context of this study was an after school university entrance examination preparation course at a private, three-year coeducational secondary school in Tokyo, Japan. The study took place in a single school year between 2006 and 2011 (the year in which the study was conducted has been omitted to ensure the anonymity of the participant). The class met once a week from the beginning of the school year in April to the week before students took the entry test in October. The language of instruction was English. In total, three students in their senior year completed the course. One of the students in this class, Hiro2 (a pseudonym), is presented in this article to illustrate the audience engagement issues that arose when writing for admissions officers at the university. He was selected specifically for discussion in this paper because of his willingness to take the time to talk about his writing with the researchers. Two of the three students from the class, including Hiro, were admitted to the university. At the time of the study, Hiro was a 17 year old male who the teacher described as a bright, well-mannered student who had many friends and was usually quite attentive in class. Though his first language was Japanese, Hiro spent 11 years in an English speaking environment in a US school and his TOEFLÒ iBT score was 105 at the time the study began. The teacher of this course (one of the authors of this paper) was a native English speaker who had 10 years teaching experience at the junior/ senior secondary school level in Japan and had finished her coursework for a masters program in TESOL. 3.3. The university entrance exam The university entrance exam was for an international liberal Studies program at a prestigious university in Tokyo. The majority of classes in this department are conducted in English and the program stresses internationalism and diversity. While English sections of university entrance exams in Japan normally contain discreet point reading and grammar questions (Brown & Yamashita, 1995), there are some university department entrance exams, including the one discussed here, that also contain direct measures of writing ability. The admissions process that students in the after school course were undertaking consisted of three main requirements: (1) a written exam of academic English; (2) a personal statement written in English (1000 words) and (3) an English oral interview for candidates who passed the written exam and application letter. The written exam, which is the focus of this paper, contained three academic readings on current events and academic topics.

2 The authors certify that this study was conducted in accordance with the ethical requirements of the institution at which the research was conducted and that formal approval to use the data in this manuscript has been obtained from both the institution and the participant in the study.

G. Myskow, K. Gordon / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 90–98

93

3.4. Research questions The present study addresses the following two questions:

1) In what ways did the writer’s use of engagement resources change from the pre-test to the post-test? 2) Is there any evidence that the contextual analysis activities used in the course informed the writer’s use of engagement resources on the post-test?

3.5. Data collection and analysis A section from a previous exam for the university department with a reading passage titled “Intimacy and Partnership” was used as the entry and exit test for the after school course (Waseda University, School of International Liberal Studies Admissions Office Exam, Spring, 2006). This particular reading was selected because it was thought that the topic would be familiar to students. A topic that was too unfamiliar may have introduced an ancillary task requirement (reading comprehension) that could have made it difficult to gain an accurate indication of the students’ writing ability. The examinees had a total of 50 min to complete the pre- and post-tests, and as with the 2006 test, there were no specifications regarding the length of the responses in terms of words, sentences or paragraphs. Hiro’s response on the entry and exit tests to the third question on this test is analyzed in this paper. In keeping with the original wording on the 2006 test, the writing prompt for this question was stated as follows: Do you think that the rising rate of divorce is a problem? The engagement system of appraisal theory was used to code the entry and exit tests. The student’s statements on both of these tests were first analyzed to determine whether they were instances of heterogloss or monogloss. The heteroglossic propositions were further analyzed to determine the specific dialogic resources that were used. The teacher kept a diary for recording reflections on the lessons and discussions with students about their writing. She also recorded the types of feedback she made on their writing, and her opinions about how they were progressing. Notes from an interview with Hiro following the post-test were also provided by the teacher. This information was used to determine the extent to which the instructional approaches used in the course had an effect on the strategies the student in this study employed in the post-test. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Hiro’s pre-test

I personally think that the rising divorce rate is a problem. One reason why I feel it is a problem is because it sets a bad example to the younger generation. There are more and more kids who are being affected by divorce in their families. Right now, in Japan we are facing a population crisis, in the near future there won’t be enough people who can support the older generation, and if the kids divorce and don’t have children when they grow up this population crisis could become a major problem. Also, the effect of divorce affecting the children might make them not even want to marry in fear of divorcing themselves. Another reason why the rising divorce rate is a problem is because it would make Japan as a country look bad and cause marital problems overseas for the Japanese people. When people from other countries find that Japan’s divorce rate is rising, they wouldn’t be very motivated to marry Japanese when the time comes. Marriage is something important to Japanese women and if they couldn’t marry overseas, they could lose hope and just not marry at all. An analysis of Hiro’s pre-test revealed a high occurrence of bare monoglossic assertions (underlined). The use of these categorical statements construes a reader who shares a great deal of likemindedness with the writer, one who would not view these propositions as potentially problematic or contentious. But the monoglossic statement it [the rising divorce rate] sets a bad example for the younger generation could very well be rejected by a reader who does not share the same negative view of divorce. Likewise, the unequivocal categorization of a population decline as a crisis in the statement in Japan we are facing a population crisis could be met with resistance by readers who are more concerned about the effects of overpopulation. And the bare assertion that marriage is something important to Japanese women would almost certainly be considered sexist to many readers in academic settings. The tendency for the author to represent his ideas as categorical propositions is consistent with Vasilleva’s (2001) finding that writers in their L2 tend to show high degrees of commitment to their argument. Coffin and Hewings (2004) suggest that being direct rather than tentative when putting forward claims may even be “a feature of non-native speaker interlanguage” (p. 168). There were however five instances of heterogloss in the pre-test. All of these were coded as “entertain”, a type of heteroglossic resource elaborated in the engagement system under dialogical expansion. Through entertain, the authorial voice

94

G. Myskow, K. Gordon / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 90–98

expands the dialogic space by invoking, or entertaining, the possibility of other viewpoints, thereby grounding the proposition “in its own contingent individual subjectivity” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 98). This dialogistic resource draws on a range of grammatical structures including modals (e.g., could, might) that are often described in the literature as “hedges” (e.g., Hyland, 1998) as well as adverbs (e.g., personally) and various forms of complementation (e.g., I think that., it’s probable that.). In Hiro’s text, the following instances of entertain were identified: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

I personally think that. One reason why I feel. .this population crisis could become. .they could lose hope and just not marry at all. .might make them not even want to marry.

In [1] and [2] the first-person-pronoun indicates that the proposition is grounded in the subjectivity of the author. Although this pronoun can be found in academic texts (Hyland, 2004), there is a tendency for writers of academic genres to prefer a more objective orientation to the topic and an impersonal, analytical style (Vasilleva, 2001). Thus, the use of these expressions in many writing contexts could be considered an unnecessary authorial intrusion. But as Coffin and Hewings (2004) point out, a tendency to give rhetorical prominence to a writer’s subjective opinions may be a generic feature of impromptu academic writing exam responses. An analysis of highly rated written responses in the argumentative and persuasive modes for an impromptu academic writing task on the IELTSÒ (International English Language Testing System), found a high occurrence of the use of subjective positioning resources such as personally and in my opinion, resulting “in a distinctive argumentative style which cannot be modeled on professional academic genres” (Coffin & Hewings, 2004, p. 168). According to the authors, one reason for this divergence from academic norms is that IELTS candidates are not provided with any written resources on which to base their argument and are therefore forced to rely on their own personal experiences. In Hiro’s case, there was a reading that was topically related to the writing prompt, but there was no requirement that the examinee refer to the reading for this particular writing task. Also, the wording of “you” in the writing prompt “Do you think the rising divorce rate is a problem?” likely primed the writer to employ a subjective voice when responding to the topic. To sum up, an analysis of the entry test found that Hiro made extensive use of categorical, monoglossic statements, construing a compliant reading position “for which values are taken for granted” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 231). When opening up rhetorical space for alternative viewpoints, the author relied exclusively on the dialogistic resource, entertain. Through the use of this strategy, Hiro employed inter-subjective positioning devices that may be considered marked in most academic discourse, but appear to be a common feature of impromptu academic writing tasks. It would be tempting to conclude that there is a mismatch between some of the beliefs and values being put forward by the writer and those that could be inferred about the university community. As Thompson (2001) points out however, “there is clearly no guarantee that the real-world readers will in fact provide the response that the text constructs for them” (p. 60). It is therefore “more accurate and useful” (p, 60) to confine an analysis to how the reader is construed in the text. Thus, instead of making inferences about the possible value positions of the university admissions officers, it is more instructive to look at the ways an ideal reader was constructed during the instructional process and how an imagined audience is construed in the student’s texts. 4.2. Instructional methods During the course, the teacher employed a variety of contextual and textual awareness-raising instructional methods to help familiarize learners with the community they were addressing and the types of textual resources that can be used to effectively communicate with their readers. To help deepen learners’ understanding of the beliefs and values of this particular academic community, students were encouraged to collect as much information about the department as possible, including its philosophy on education, the impact it has had in their field of interest, and any publications from professors in the department. Students were also required to attend open-campus events at the university and interview students in the department. To facilitate these interviews, the teacher invited students who had taken the same after school course in previous years to come to the class and talk with the students (see Myskow & Gordon, 2010, for a more detailed account of the types of contextual awareness raising activities used in this context). In class, the teacher worked with learners to analyze a welcome letter from the Dean of the department that was found on the university website. She directed them to read the document and highlight any beliefs and values that they thought were important in this community. To help familiarize learners with this rather abstract concept of beliefs and values, the teacher began by exploring some of the values of their local classroom communities and asked them to think about the types of considerations that would be important if they were selecting candidates for their homerooms (see Johns, 1997 for other techniques for analyzing local communities). Two of the main themes to emerge when analyzing the welcome letter from the Dean were internationalism and diversity. Based on these themes, the teacher explored with students how statements about gender, age, or race may be perceived as discriminatory by this community and by audiences of academic writing in general. According to the teacher, the purpose of this activity was to “help [students] become more aware of the values of their audience, and to be more considerate of what

G. Myskow, K. Gordon / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 90–98

95

they write and the concepts they choose to state in their writing” (teacher’s diary, July 15). Through these activities, the teacher worked with students to construct a reader who champions diversity and internationalism. At a linguistic level, learners were directed to analyze sample essays written by the teacher and students in the class for a wide range of textual features, including the interpersonal strategies used by the author for engaging the audience as well as grammatical patterns, and topic-related vocabulary. The teacher had students analyze these sample texts for the ways the writer hedges his/her claims, makes concessions and whether or not the author’s claims may be construed as “offensive” or “impressive” to the intended audience. On one of Hiro’s drafts, the teacher directed him to reconsider the force of his claims by writing “hedge?” and suggested that he “avoid using ‘every’ and ‘only’” (teacher’s diary, September 15). In one lesson, the teacher drew on the appraisal theory concept of dialogical expansion and contraction to help students make the connections between the various linguistic devices (e.g., hedging and concession) and the ways that these are used to communicate with readers. [Hiro] is still struggled [sic] with restrictive communication. He tended to speak and write as if he is the authority and did not leave space for others’ opinions. I told them how when we communicate, we use language that opens and closes communication with the audience. (teacher’s diary, July 15) In the following excerpt from the same entry, the teacher seemed to view this concept of dialogical expansion and contraction as having some pedagogical value, but she expressed regret that it had not been addressed in a more thorough and systematic way in the course: I did not plan to talk about this concept [dialogical expansion and contraction] with them, but it was on my mind and I decided to offer them a different perspective on why they need to hedge their writing. Although they seemed to understand what I was saying, I wished I had planned this discussion and created a short activity for them to really process the concept. (teacher’s diary, July 15) In Hiro’s post-test shown in full below, he chose to maintain the same oppositional stance to the rising divorce rate as he did in the pre-test. There are noticeable differences however in the way he approached this topic and the types of interpersonal resources he used.

4.3. Hiro’s post-test

Personally, I feel that the rising rate of divorce is a problem for a number of reasons. One reason is that rising divorce rates may show that Britain could be an unstable country in terms of marriage to other countries over the world. This could lead British people to not being able to marry people in other countries, due to British people being seen as maritally unstable. Another reason is that divorce may have a negative effect on any children the divorcing couple may have. Although not all children will be affected, there may be some who might harbor negative feelings toward the parents they are not able to see all the time. For example, one of my close friends has feelings of hatred and hostility toward his father that divorced with his mother when he was still young. For these reasons, I feel that the rising divorce rate in Great Britain is a problem. At first glance, Hiro’s post-test may not seem to be much of an improvement. The response seems to show some confusion about the requirements for the writing task. In the first paragraph and the final sentence of the second paragraph, Hiro focused his discussion on the consequences of rising divorce rates in Britain, while in the remainder of his response (as well as in the pre-test) he discussed these only in the context of Japan. We believe this variation in the way Hiro approached the task may be attributed in part to the design of the prompt. The writing task does not specify a particular country (e.g., the author’s home country) in which the issue of divorce is to be discussed. Also, a text on the topic of rising divorce rates in Britain was included on the exam with comprehension questions and another writing task that required examinees to integrate information from the reading in their response. It is therefore somewhat understandable that Hiro chose to focus part of his response on Britain. Such confusion may have been avoided by narrowing the focus of the topic (see Hamp-Lyons & Mathias, 1994 for discussion of issues in writing prompt construction). Another noticeable difference between the two tests is the decreased number of words on the post-test (entry test ¼ 190 words; exit test ¼ 155 words). In a follow-up interview, Hiro was asked to speculate about the reasons why he wrote less on the exit test than the entry test and responded: “Maybe I took more time at the end editing last time [on the exit test].” (posttest follow-up interview, October 24). In terms of engagement, however, Hiro’s exit test was found to be a highly heteroglossic one. Table 1 shows that with the exception of one bare, categorical assertion, all statements contained at least one dialogistic marker, construing a reader who may not readily align him/herself with the propositions being advanced. As with the entry test, Hiro relied predominantly on his entertain resources to allow for alternative voices by presenting the proposition as one among a range of possibilities. In doing so he made use of mental processes verbs (I feel that) as well as the adverb (personally) and three modal verbs (may, could, might) repeated seven times throughout the text. Through the extensive use of this rhetorical technique, Hiro adopts

96

G. Myskow, K. Gordon / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 90–98 Table 1 A comparison of monogloss and heterogloss in the entry and exit tests. Dialogic resources

Entry test

Exit test

Monogloss Heterogloss

7 5

1 8

a more cautious voice and “makes space in the heteroglossic backdrop” (Martin & White, p. 97) for voices that would reject a strong anti-divorce argument. Hiro also employed several heteroglossic resources in the exit test that were not found in the entry test. In [6], the use of “being seen as” has the effect of disassociating from the writer the opinion that British people are maritally unstable by attributing it to an unspecified group of people. [6] This could lead British people to not being able to marry people in other countries, due to British people being seen as maritally unstable. The attribution of this view to an unspecified external voice is sometimes referred to as “hearsay” (Coffin & Hewings, 2004). In the appraisal system, however, this rhetorical technique is classified as acknowledge, a sub-category of expansion, for the way in which the writer/speaker refers to, or acknowledges voices outside the text. Another heteroglossic resource that Hiro used in the exit test was a complex set of two interlinked rhetorical moves called “concur-counter”. Like the other dialogical resources discussed thus far (entertain and acknowledge), the concur-counter pairing is categorized as heterogloss for the way in which it overtly recognizes competing views. But unlike these other resources, the primary function of this strategy is not to make allowances for or expand the range of dialogic alternatives. Instead, the concur-counter pairing actually contracts the number of voices in the text because it acts to challenge or “fend off” competing voices (see Martin & White, 2005, pp. 102–108, for a detailed discussion of this distinction). Thus, in the engagement system, concur-counter is developed as a sub-category of heteroglossic contraction rather than expansion for the way in which it recognizes alternative voices for the purpose of dismissing them or casting doubt on them in some way. For example, in [7] Hiro admits or concurs that not all children will be affected [by divorce], and in doing so, he construes a reader who might be resistant to a categorical claim that children will necessarily be negatively affected by divorce. [7] Although not all children will be affected [by divorce], there may be some who might harbor negative feelings toward the parents they are not able to see all the time. A point of solidarity, therefore, is established between the writer and an envisioned reader who may reject a strong antidivorce position. However, Hiro quickly takes back this argumentative ground in the subsequent counter move by pointing out that “there may be some [children]” who will be negatively affected by divorce. Through this concur-counter rhetorical pair, Hiro is able to align himself (temporarily) with the view of a resistant reading position and then dismiss it “as not sufficient to prevent an overridingly” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 124) negative evaluation of the effect of divorce on children. The counter move in the “concur-counter” formation is often described in the literature as “concession” (Thompson & Zhou, 2000). In the appraisal system, however, concession (referred to as concede) is reserved for concurrences that are particularly “reluctant, grudging or qualified” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 124–125). As Table 2 shows, the exit test contained not only a higher occurrence of dialogic resources than the entry test, but more variation in the types used, revealing a more cautious text in which alignments between reader–writer are not to be taken for granted. In fact, the only monoglossic statement found in the exit test (underlined) functioned to report the private feelings of another individual. Since it is unlikely that other voices would challenge the accuracy of Hiro’s description of an anonymous individual’s inner feelings, there would be little need to dialogize this proposition. But one aspect of this assertion that may stand out to readers is Hiro’s use of the rather forceful terms “hatred and hostility” instead of less emotionally charged terms like “resentment” and “anger”. Scaling or graduating of intensity is dealt with separately in the appraisal system under “graduation”. A full discussion of these rhetorical features is beyond the scope of this particular analysis, but is worth noting that the detached objective orientation of academic writing has a tendency to limit the use of this emotional upscaling (see Hood, 2010 for a detailed description of the graduation system and its application to academic writing). Another point of contrast with the pre-test was that there were no monoglossic propositions regarding the assumed value positions of Japanese women, or any other groups of women. The avoidance of such statements may be attributable in part to the contextual analysis activities and class discussions about the perceived beliefs and values of the university community. In

Table 2 A comparison of types of dialogic resources in the entry and exit tests. Dialogic resources

Entry test

Exit test

Entertain Attribute Concur-Counter

6 0 0

10 1 1

G. Myskow, K. Gordon / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 90–98

97

a follow-up interview after the exit test, Hiro was asked why he didn’t discuss gender in his response and he provided the following, rather colorful explanation: “If you take the wrong step, you could piss someone off, so the best way to avoid that is to not say anything at all” (posttest follow-up interview, October 24) Hiro’s interview response raises several key issues about the instructional approaches described in this paper. On the one hand, it shows a growing awareness of the dialogic nature of academic discourse and the ways that the beliefs and values of an imagined reader can affect the rhetorical strategies used in a text. On the other hand, the communicative strategy Hiro chose to employ was one of topic-avoidance, in this case, gender. While this may have been an effective practical strategy for a highstakes writing exam, an over-reliance on avoidance strategies may inhibit risk-taking and even hinder language learning (Bialystok, 1990). Hiro’s response also reveals a willingness to conform to the perceived expectations of a powerful reader, which as some proponents of critical pedagogies have suggested (e.g., Benesch, 2001; Pennycook, 1997), could serve to reify the very power relations that may disadvantage some second language learners. But in this particular course there was the highly specific pragmatic goal of helping learners gain access to a particular institution. A sustained instructional focus on critiquing this community could have been viewed by some stakeholders (e.g., students, parents and school administrators) as an unnecessary distraction from this goal and possibly even a disservice to students. 5. Conclusion and pedagogical implications In response to the first question of this study that asked simply how the writer’s engagement resources changed from the pre-test to the post-test, Hiro’s post-test was shown to be far more overtly dialogized than the pre-test, with an overwhelming preference for heteroglossic over monoglossic statements. The use of concur-counter and acknowledge in addition to entertain also showed the post-test to contain more variation in the types of engagement strategies used. While this smallscale study shows significant changes in the writer’s use of engagement strategies over the course, it is not possible to make any generalizable claims regarding the value of the pedagogical approached used in this study. As the following discussion to the second question of the study shows, the attribution of changes in interpersonal positioning to specific pedagogical techniques is not so straightforward. The second question asked if there was any evidence that the contextual analysis activities used in the course informed the writer’s use of engagement strategies on the post-test. Hiro’s reluctance to discuss the issue of gender altogether was evidence that the instructional focus on audience had an effect on his strategies for interpersonal positioning. But as we pointed out in the previous section, the strategy Hiro employed was one of topic-avoidance that did not involve any actual adjustment in the author’s stance or any attempt to accommodate different views toward this topic. Also, it is possible that the increase in the number of engagement resources used in the post-test does not necessarily reveal a deeper awareness of his readership. Indeed Hiro could have chosen to use these resources, not so much because the contextual awareness raising activities brought about a careful consideration of the specific beliefs and values of the community he was writing for, but because he was simply following his teacher’s advice to include these “packages of specific linguistic features” (Hyland, 2004, p. 133). Helping students develop the view of textual features as dialogical resources that function to engage readers in particular social contexts is a complex task. Tardy (2009) found that even after graduate students in an advanced academic writing course completed various contextual awareness raising activities, they showed little evidence in follow-up interviews of actually understanding the dynamic relationship between the linguistic features of their texts and the sociorhetorical context of the writing assignment. Explicit explanation about the “usefulness of linking contextual and formal features” coupled with “a sustained, systematic analysis” of the ways texts and contexts interact may have helped to address some of the shortcomings of the approach used in the study (p. 128). Though the teacher in the present study made efforts to present linguistic features such as hedging and concession in the context of the perceived beliefs and values of the university community, some regret was expressed by the teacher about not having approached this aspect of the instructional process more systematically. The teacher, rather incidentally, used the appraisal theory concept of dialogical expansion and contraction to help illustrate how linguistic features can function to open up or close down the text to envisioned readers. The appraisal system has been employed mainly as a means of coding discourse to gain insights into the interpersonal dimension of written and spoken texts. But the concept of dialogical expansion and contraction in the engagement system may also provide a useful pedagogical tool to help learners integrate various linguistic features with their function to engage a particular readership. It is not difficult to imagine how the concept of expansion and contraction could be represented visually for learners on an overhead or on animated slides, illustrating how a text opens itself up or closes down to particular audiences. A monoglossic statement for example could be represented in alignment with a small community of shared beliefs and values. But as various engagement resources are added such as “entertain” or the “concur” component of concur-counter, the heteroglossic space could be represented as expanding to engage a more diverse set of views toward the value positions being put forward in the text. If this concept is returned to throughout the instructional process, it may provide an integrative principle to help make explicit the link between engagement resources and envisioned readers. One other pedagogical issue that warrants some discussion is Hiro’s willingness to conform to the perceived expectations of an envisioned audience. As pointed out in the previous section, the clearly defined pragmatic goals of this course (to help

98

G. Myskow, K. Gordon / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 90–98

students gain access to a prestigious institution) did not allow for a sustained instructional focus on the critical dimension of academic writing. Nevertheless, we feel that even in the context of exam preparation courses, it is important for teachers to avoid reinforcing the view of students as passive consumers of knowledge and the powerful ideologies that are inseparable from it. Johns (1997) suggests having learners analyze their exams for the ways in which they enact ideology and power. Perhaps simply engaging students in incidental discussions about ways that a test may function to exclude groups of students may help to address this concern. Such discussions could promote the view that acceptance to a university community also provides an opportunity to change it. References Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.) Austin. Texas: University of Texas Press. Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies. A psychological analysis of second-language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97–116. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001. Brown, J. D., & Yamashita, S. O. (1995). English language entrance examinations at Japanese universities: what do we know about them? JALT Journal, 17, 7–30. Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. (1994). On reporting reporting: the representation of speech in factual and factional and narratives. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 295–309). London: Routledge. Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2004). IELTS as preparation for tertiary writing: distinctive interpersonal and textual strategies. In L. Ravelli, & R. E. Ellis (Eds.), Analyzing academic writing (pp. 153–171). New York, NY: Continuum. Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analyzing casual conversation. London: Cassell. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Issues and directions in assessing second language writing in academic contexts. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 323–329). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Hamp-Lyons, L., & Mathias, S. P. (1994). Examining expert judgments of task difficulty on essay tests. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 49–68. doi:10. 1016/1060-3743(94)90005-1. Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman. Hyland, K. (2005). Representing readers in writing: students and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16, 366–377. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2006.05.002. Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leki, I. (2007). Undergraduates in a second language: Challenges and complexities of academic literacy development. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Macken-Horarik, M. (2003). Appraisal and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text, 32, 285–312. doi:10.1515/text.2003.012, 09/07/2003. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse. London: Continuum. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Myskow, G., & Gordon, K. (2010). A focus on purpose: using a genre approach in an EFL writing class. ELT Journal, 64, 283–292. doi:10.1093/elt/ccp057. Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Pennycook, A. (1997). Vulgar pragmatism, critical pragmatism, and EAP. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 253–269. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00019-7. Prior, P. A. (1995). Redefining the task: an ethnographic examination of writing and response in graduate seminars. In D. Belcher, & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 47–82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tardy, C. M. (2009). Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor Press. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22, 58–78. doi:10.1093/applin/22.1.58. Thompson, G., & Zhou, J. (2000). Evaluation and organization in text: the structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 121–141). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 83–102. doi:10.1016/S08894906(99)00029-0. Waseda University, School of International Liberal Studies Admissions Office Exam Unpublished Entrance Exam (2006). White, E. (1994). Teaching and assessing writing: Recent advances in understanding, evaluating and improving student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gordon Myskow is an adjunct professor of TESOL at Columbia University (Japan) and an EFL Lecturer in the Department of Economics at Toyo University. His research interests include, L2 writing, genre-based instruction and the interpersonal dimension of academic texts. Kana Gordon is a TESOL MA candidate at Columbia University Teachers College. She has been teaching at the secondary level in Japan for 10 years. Her research interests include L2 writing, appraisal theory, program evaluation and the social and academic development of Japanese ‘returnees’.