- Email: [email protected]
Making the mechanics of paraphrasing more explicit through Grammatical Metaphor
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 42 (2019) 100783
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of English for Academic Purposes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap
Making the mechanics of paraphrasing more explicit through Grammatical Metaphor Jennifer Walsh Marr University of British Columbia, Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 21 December 2018 Received in revised form 19 August 2019 Accepted 27 August 2019 Available online 5 September 2019
Paraphrasing research has often been situated as an issue of academic honesty, ownership of knowledge and discourse appropriation (Abasi, Akvari & Graves, 2006; Currie, 1998; Lyon, 2009; Pecorari, 2003; Pecorari & Shaw, 2012). This paper has a pedagogical focus, outlining how the discrete grammatical processes typical of successful paraphrasing (Keck, 2010) are used to support first year university writing students working in English as an additional language. Drawing on Halliday’s (2009) concept of Grammatical Metaphor and focusing primarily on ideas and their logical relations (known within Systemic Functional Linguistics as the ideational metafunction), shifts in form within and across clause functions are demonstrated conceptually and with explained examples. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how highlighting some functional metalanguage can break the process of paraphrasing into more explicit moves for instructional benefit. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Shifts in the discourse around paraphrasing from punitive to pedagogical The past several years of second/additional language (L2/LX) writing research, particularly that focused on English for Academic Purposes (EAP), has focused on who is (or isn't) paraphrasing properly (Pecorari, 2003; Shi, 2012) as well as the why of paraphrasing (Hirvela & Du, 2013). Investigations of students' understanding of what is and is not acceptable paraphrasing find that students' educational histories, translanguaging and disciplinary practices all play a role in producing and judging the acceptability of paraphrases (Abasi, Akvari, & Graves, 2006; Currie, 1998; Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Keck 2006, 2010; Lyon, 2009; Shi, 2012). The matter is further complicated by inconsistencies in paraphrasing (and plagiarising) practices of writing instructors (Pecorari & Shaw, 2012; Tomas, 2010) and institutions (Yamada, 2003), giving novice writers mixed messages regarding who follows which convention and why. What has been a welcome, productive turn in the literature is the shift from a punitive discourse to one that acknowledges paraphrasing as a complex process that develops over time (Keck, 2010; Wette, 2017). However, EAP teaching materials that demonstrate how to paraphrase are not yet as plentiful and comprehensive as they could be. This curricular project has been an attempt to make more explicit the discrete steps that facilitate L2/ LX students' appropriate re-representation of other scholars' work in their texts, helping them move beyond merely critiquing the acceptability of a paraphrase and expected citation practices to participating as novice scholars in discourse communities. The trends in the research literature that have more closely examined the who and why of paraphrasing are paralleled in how most of the available EAP teaching resources gloss over explicit instruction of how to paraphrase. I liken this to a
E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100783 1475-1585/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2
J. Walsh Marr / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 42 (2019) 100783
mysterious ‘black box’ into which we have very little visibility of the discrete language shifts that happen between the original source ‘input’ and the expected paraphrase ‘output’. What happens in between these two texts in the shift from others' original to suitable paraphrase has not had adequate attention for the purposes of pedagogy, remaining too long out of reach for too many students. This mystery is similar to how proficient (typically L1 or ‘native speaker’) academic writers and instructors refer to their process of “osmosis” in learning to write (Marshall & Walsh Marr, 2018), where the processes, components and deployment of strategies for paraphrasing have remained frustratingly opaque to both students and often instructors. Paraphrasing strategies require a “host of interconnected subskills” (Hirvela & Du, 2013, p. 88) that themselves demand more significant investments of time and lower-stakes practice than many students who are enrolled in tertiary studies have the luxury of taking. Wette's (2010) action research acknowledged the complexities of the process of paraphrasing and the need for deeper pedagogy, describing the state of literature as “more problem-oriented than solution-oriented or practice-oriented” (p. 159). I suggest a key piece of the solution is Grammatical Metaphor from Systemic Functional Linguistics (hereafter SFL): the rept, 2015; resentation of meaning through a shift from one grammatical form to another (Halliday, 2009, Devrim, 2015; Liarde 2016; 2018). Yasuda (2017) uses SFL in task based language teaching (TBLT), distinguishing between target tasks to accomplish a goal (writing a particular type of text), and pedagogic tasks (the teaching tasks to support the development of bits of language required to accomplish said goals). Employing this distinction, paraphrasing can be seen as the task and Grammatical Metaphor its pedagogic backbone. In sharing my research to practice here, I aim to make explicit a feature of functional grammar to EAP instructors who may be working in non SFL-informed contexts (as is common in tertiary education in North America). This paper shares teaching materials and some of the process of their development for an embedded, first year academic writing course for L2/LX students with an upper intermediate (IELTS 5.5/CEFR B1-B2) proficiency of English. I aim to open the ‘black box’ of SFL and shed some light for non-SFL specialists on the phenomenon of Grammatical Metaphor, the shift from one grammatical form to another (Halliday, 2009), to inform both EAP teachers and the explicit teaching of paraphrasing. 2. Pedagogy and teaching resources: introducing metalanguage and Grammatical Metaphor We begin our course with the concept of the three concomitant metafunctions of SFL. These metafunctions can serve as lenses through which we look at what is going on in a text, and give us a shared language with which to talk about these features and functions, as “intertextual comparison can not go very far without a specialised vocabulary to tease out differences and similarities between texts.” (Butt, Fahey, Feez, Spinks, & Yallop, 2000, p. 8). Our limited range and use of metalanguage in simplified terms embodies Martin and Rose's (2007) warning to “only use those technical terms that we need to consolidate understandings and make them portable, so that they can be used easily for as wide a range of analytical tasks as possible” (p. 3). The bulk of this paper and pedagogical intervention focuses on the IDEATIONAL metafunction, builds lexicogrammatical resources for students, and highlights how experiential and logical meanings can be rearranged for successful paraphrasing. Drawing on knowledge our students typically have already, the terminology we use within the ideational metafunction draws on formal grammar terms common in most other pedagogical contexts: Processes are typically manifest as verbs and verb groups, Participants typically as nouns and/or nominal groups (including some adjectives and prepositional phrases that may modify head nouns within those Participants), and Circumstances are manifest as adverbs, prepositional phrases, and a few nominal groups (Derewianka, 2011). The analytical task outlined below serves to reinforce a central theme of the course; that there are different language choices for different purposes and audiences that all writers need to take into consideration for ‘successful’ writing. In everyday, informal interactions (non-academic discourse), Processes (verbal groups) are more central to events, resulting in a more immediate sense of ‘who is doing what’. SFL considers this form congruent, not having shifted away from reality in any way. In academic discourse, however, meaning gets packed into lexically dense nouns through the process of nominalization (essentially the ‘making of nouns’), the cornerstone of Grammatical Metaphor. Nominalization means various verbs' hapt, 2016). penings are reworked through metaphor as phenomena: things that happen (Devrim, 2015; Halliday, 2009; Liarde Nominalization makes phenomena seem more stable, allowing for analysis and expanded relations between phenomena and t, 2016; Schleppegrell, 2001). is a distinct feature of academic writing (Liarde To illustrate these ‘typical’, expected or ‘congruent’ realizations, we can use the following sentence: Children consume too many soft drinks. Here, the noun, children, congruently realizes the Participant, the verb, consume, congruently realizes the Process, and the nominal group, too many soft drinks, congruently realizes another Participant. Children
consume
too many soft drinks.
Participant Noun (nominal group)
Process Verb (verbal group)
Participant Nominal group
Alternatively, the meanings expressed here could be reconstrued incongruently, or metaphorically, allowing a writer to “pack up” the information provided in the original. For example, the original Process, consume, combined with the descriptive
J. Walsh Marr / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 42 (2019) 100783
3
meanings from the second nominal group, too many, can be nominalized to become the head noun overconsumption in the newly formed Participant: Children's overconsumption of soft drinks … Children's overconsumption of soft drinks Participant Noun (nominal group)
Process Verb (verbal group)
Participant Nominal group
This shift from an entire clause (“Children consume too many soft drinks.“) to an elaborated Participant not only represents rudimentary Grammatical Metaphor, but, as the Process and Participant slots are ready to be filled, also an opportunity to say and do more with this phenomenon of “children's overconsumption of soft drinks …” Experientially, the nominalization of ‘consume’ makes it a thing to study and discuss, a key feature of academic practice (Halliday, 2009; Schleppegrell, 2001). Textually, with the rest of the sentence to be completed, the nominalization of the clause into a Participant gives the writer the rest of the clause to expand into discussing causes, implications, or related phenomena. In this example, we see a Process such as “consume” become “consumption”, but there can be several typical shifts and stages along the way that happen within Grammatical Metaphor as representation moves from congruence (the here and now) to metaphorical forms: logical relations (such as “because”) move from being between clauses to manifesting as Circumstances (“because of x” or “as a result of x”), premodifying adjectives within Participants (“causal factors”) to, most metaphorically, nominalized Participants (“a cause”). For comprehensive charting of typical changes, please see the “Grammatical Metaphor” chapter in The Essential Halliday (2009) and Devrim (2015). Our teaching materials work through several examples such as that above to build repertoires of these typical shifts for students’ reference and deployment in their own paraphrasing development. 3. Student tasks: deconstructing and reconstructing paraphrases employing Grammatical Metaphor To highlight the features and shifts of Grammatical Metaphor, we situate most of our lessons with the deconstruction (Martin & Rose, 2005, pp. 251e280) of highly-valued student texts to analyse how such texts are constructed, gaining deeper understanding of what they say as well as the linguistic components used to put the meaning together. The focus on existing texts also validates students' valuing of source texts as models, and our deconstructive analysis expands their use beyond being just temptingly ‘perfect’ models to copy. While there is acknowledgement in the less-punitive plagiarism/paraphrasing literature that ‘copying’ and ‘patchwriting’ may well be a developmental step in students' writing repertoires (Hirvela & Du, 2013; Pecorari, 2003), the value-added that deconstruction offers is an explicit focus on what language features are manifest in these model texts and their function in satisfying the purpose of the text, as “… unless analyzed, [those features] might remain hidden from learners” (Yasuda, 2017, pp. 579e580). Incorporating attention to the deconstruction of existing, model texts and their features helps students appreciate the meaning constructed through particular language choices. We work on not only reading like a reader (i.e. for meaning), but also ‘reading like a writer’; as in, how do other authors construct their meaning and paraphrase their own source texts? After introducing the concept of Grammatical Metaphor, we task students with identifying the specific linguistic changes (both lexical and grammatical) made in excerpts that are ‘unpacked’ (rendered more congruent), then those same excerpts ‘packed up’ (summarized through Grammatical Metaphor). As they deconstruct these paraphrases, they draw on their existing knowledge of formal grammar, deploy their developing familiarity with functional metalanguage, and build a repertoire of typical shifts to deploy in their own paraphrases. Example 1.
Original:
“Food loss is defined as the edible food that is lost throughout production, postharvest, and processing, whereas food waste refers to edible food lost at the end of the food chain due to behaviour of retailers and consumers” (Nance, Vadnais, Hicks, & Lawson, 2016). Unpacked (made more congruent): Food loss is food we can eat but that we discard while it is being produced, after it is harvested or while it is being processed. Food waste is food that we can eat but that we throw away at the end of the food chain because retailers and consumers choose not to sell or eat it (Nance et al., 2016). Some of the shifts from the original with Grammatical Metaphor to congruence include: Premodifying adjective ‘edible food’ is unpacked to post modifying embedded clause ‘food we can eat’ Nominalizations ‘production, post harvest and processing’ are unpacked as passive Processes (verbs) ‘is being produced,. is harvested, … being processed’ Causal meaning of ‘due to’ within a Circumstance becomes Logical relator ‘because’ between clauses
4
J. Walsh Marr / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 42 (2019) 100783
Packed (made more metaphorical): Food that is edible but discarded during production is known as food loss, whereas food discarded once it has reached the market is called food waste (Nance et al., 2016). In the final paraphrase, all the information is packed into a compound clause with the following components: Food that is edible but discarded during production
is known as
food loss
Participant Nominal group
Process Verbal group
Participant Nominal group
whereas
food discarded once it has reached the market
is called
food waste.
Logical relator Text connector
Participant Nominal group
Process Verbal group
Participant Nominal group
In the example, we see how embedded clauses such as ‘food we can eat’, ‘we discard’ and ‘while it is being produced’ can become adjectives (‘edible’ and ‘discarded’) and reduced post modifiers (‘during production’). Example 2.
Original:
“Some food loss is unavoidable for health and safety reasons, however, the consumers' demand for cosmetically perfect fruits and vegetables has created an unnecessary amount of waste” (Nance et al., 2016). Unpacked (made more congruent): We cannot avoid throwing out some food because we want to protect people's health and safety. However, because consumers want cosmetically perfect fruits and vegetables, too much food is thrown out (Nance et al., 2016). Packed (made more metaphorical): The protection of health and safety means some food loss is inevitable, although excessive waste results from market demands and standards (Nance et al., 2016). In this example we highlight: the inevitability of food loss as either Participant (‘unavoidable’, ‘inevitable’) or Process (‘cannot avoid’), the rationale as Circumstance (‘for health and safety reasons’), dependent clause (‘because we want to protect people's health and safety’) and Participant (‘the protection of health and safety’) market forces as Participant (the consumers' demand’), clause (‘consumers want … ‘) and the abstracted Participant ‘market demands and standards’. In addition to focusing students’ gaze on deconstructing original and paraphrased texts, we also help them build their repertoire of common paraphrasing techniques with a list and comprehension check of other typical metaphorical shifts, supported with contextualized examples: Shifting sentences: Two independent clauses become a compound complex sentence (with conjunction). Note how the clauses are rearranged in the final example: Food waste occurs at different points in the FSC. However, it is most readily defined at the retail and consumer stages. Food waste occurs at different points in the FSC, although it is most readily defined at the retail and consumer stages. Or: Although it is most readily defined at the retail and consumer stages, food waste occurs at different points in the FSC. Shifting sentences: Two independent clauses become a compound sentence (with gerund to show how something is done): This paper presents results from a driver review of food waste issues. It combines information on food waste from the international literature with supply chain experts. This paper presents results from a driver review of food waste issues, combining information on food waste from the international literature and interviews with supply chain experts. Switching polarity (positive/negative): Cosmetically Perfect Fruits and Vegetables meet aesthetic standards …
J. Walsh Marr / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 42 (2019) 100783
5
Cosmetically imperfect fruits and vegetables refer to produce which is considered visually substandard … Cosmetically imperfect produce, not satisfying various physical characteristics, … Participant or Circumstance? Oftentimes, people discard cosmetically imperfect produce, resulting in food waste or food loss. (Participant). Produce that does not meet these standards is often thrown away, and can be classified as either food loss or food waste. (Participant). … produce outside these norms tends to be discarded at some point along the production and/or distribution chain. (Circumstance). Produce that is too small, too large or misshapen is considered cosmetically imperfect and tends to be discarded, either before or after reaching the consumer. (Circumstance). Modifying quality within a Participant, or as a Participant (Attribute)? Produce that conforms to normative standards of physical characteristics is considered cosmetically perfect (Participant). Cosmetically imperfect fruits and vegetables … (quality/premodification of Participant). Pre or post modification of the Head Noun within a Participant: Produce that is too small, too large or misshapen … Oversize, undersize or misshapen produce … Circumstance or embedded in Process? Produce that does not meet these standards is often thrown away. (Circumstance). Often, produce that does not meet these standards is thrown away. (Circumstance). Produce outside these norms tends to be discarded (within Verbal group/Process). 4. Joint reconstruction After having completed a deconstruction of samples and armed with the list of common sample shifts above, we work together to jointly construct a new paraphrase, with the following guiding questions to help students unpack and identify the Processes, Participants, Circumstance and stance of the source text: What's this about? What are the Processes? Who/what is involved? (Participants) What are the relations between these Participants? What are the Circumstances around this? Which ideas are most important? How is the author saying this? What impression (feeling) do you have? The guiding questions serve not only to help students identify the components before manipulating their form and function, but also serve to underline how paraphrasing is not just an exercise in writing; it relies on comprehension of the source material. Paraphrasing itself “… provides insight into how well students read (since comprehension is the first step toward paraphrasing) as well as write.” (Hirvela & Du, 2013, p. 88). It is essentially the why of EAP; students are primarily engaged in either paraphrasing their own ideas (either from their L1 or LX) or incorporating others’ ideas (from external sources) into coherent new texts with expected, valued language features of the discipline and assignment. Our task of identifying the Processes and the Participants involved helps students see how the components are used to generate meaning, and how they can be manipulated through common Grammatical Metaphorical shifts for paraphrasing. 5. Assessment and extension To draw students' attention to the standards expected of their paraphrases, as well as to build both community in the class and linguistic resources among its members, students complete peer assessment of draft paraphrases using the simple rubrics
6
J. Walsh Marr / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 42 (2019) 100783
below. I have artificially separated language features from meaning (admittedly anathema to Halliday's philosophy of language) so as to have students value and analyse both. These rubrics also represent paraphrasing as a sophisticated skill that develops on a continuum. Meaning 0
1
The paraphrase has significant The meaning has completely changed errors or changes that confuse the meaning of the original. through errors or misrepresentation of the original.
2
3
4
The main ideas from the original are recognizable, but the paraphrase has some changes in meaning.
Most of the main ideas are correct, but there are some differences in word meaning or stance from the original.
The paraphrase and original convey exactly the same meaning and stance (positioning/attitude)
Language features 0
1
2
3
4
The paraphrase has very few vocabulary and grammar changes from the original. No citation of the original source.
Most of the grammatical structures are the same, but some vocabulary have been changed. No, incomplete, or inaccurate citation of the original source.
Some language features from the original are recognizable, but the paraphrase has some changes in vocabulary and/or grammar. Includes an accurate citation of the original source.
The paraphrase has significant grammar and vocabulary changes but still some recognizable features from the original (not including special terminology & proper nouns). Includes an accurate citation of the original source.
There are few, if any, recognizable vocabulary or clausal structures recognizable from the original (except special terminology & proper nouns). Includes an accurate citation of the original source.
Careful readers will note the reference to “stance (positioning/attitude)” in the rubric; this is a reference to the Intert’s (2018) article on Interpersonal personal Metafunction. Due to the limits of space in this article, I refer you to Liarde Grammatical Metaphor in which modality is employed to increase objectivity, hedge claims and expand interpersonal engagement (dialogic space). 6. Nominalization, Grammatical Metaphor and their role in paraphrasing The major focus of our paraphrasing activities is revealing the phenomenon of Nominalization and Grammatical Metaphor, the representation of meaning through a shift from one grammatical form to another (Halliday, 2009). Establishing the form and function of Processes, Participants and Circumstances gives us the metalanguage to label not only the components of content, but make explicit the grammatical shifts that typically occur in paraphrasing. The various shifts in form are fundamental to Keck’s (2010) analysis of the linguistic features of “successful paraphrases” revealing that in the strongest samples, “students made revisions at the clause element level. That is, they divided the original excerpt into its major components (e.g. subject, main verb, direct object) and transformed them into new units (typically of a different grammatical form) that expressed the same idea” (Keck, 2010, p. 216). Wette's (2010) description of her instructional resources for teaching L2 writers to incorporate sources appropriately in their work included tasks that not only matched paraphrased excerpts with the original sources (a useful attention to meaning), but also “discussing the types of transformation that can and need to be made” (p. 170). By giving the components names and functions, and looking closely at the shifts they make in paraphrases, we are building a focused toolkit of components to analyse and manipulate. The analysis of grammatical changes manifest in successful paraphrases is essentially peeking into that mysterious “black box” of paraphrasing to see how the components interact with one another in typical shifts and features valued in academic discourse. All the moving parts in the process of paraphrasing bring to mind Keck's (2010) own conclusion, that “paraphrasing is an incredibly complex skill that requires a high level of grammatical competence and lexical knowledge” (p. 216). And yet there have not been many teaching resources that contextualize that grammatical competence, particularly through a functional lens. In addition to building students' vocabularies, “It seems that metaphorical language choices are crucial in developing the kinds of meanings necessary for a successful summary. These language choices enable the reduction, generalization, and integration of information from the source in such a way that plagiarism is avoided” (Drury, 1991, p. 452). In introducing Grammatical Metaphor early in our EAP course, we establish reference points and metalanguage to build on throughout the remainder of the course. Establishing Grammatical Metaphor as a key phenomenon of academic writing gives it a name and helps students recognize when it happens and/or is needed through the duration of the course. A list of typical metaphoric shifts provides developing writers with an expanded toolkit to deploy and build upon through their academic English language development. Instead of opaque instructions to “put it in your own words”, EAP instructional materials need to reveal the key components of meaning and the concrete grammatical shifts that occur in the process of paraphrasing. The sample activities here
J. Walsh Marr / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 42 (2019) 100783
7
are an attempt to make explicit the mechanics of Grammatical Metaphor to better inform EAP instruction, ultimately to let students in on and build a repertoire of skills in an otherwise nebulous, yet high stakes, process. Acknowledgement I would like to thank the reviewers of earlier versions of this manuscript for their careful attention to improve its development and clarity. I am humbled by their encouragement, generous suggestions and overall investment in this article. Of course, any oversights are solely my responsibility. References Abasi, A., Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 102e117. Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2000). Using functional grammar. Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 1e18. Derewianka, B. (2011). A new Grammar companion for teachers. Primary English Teaching Association Australia. Devrim, D. Y. (2015). Grammatical metaphor: What do we mean? What exactly are we researching? Functional Linguistics, 2(1), 3. Drury, H. (1991). The use of systemic linguistics to describe student summaries at university level. Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses, 431e457. Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007). Plagiarism and second language writing in an electronic age. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 161e183. Halliday, M. A. K. (2009). The essential Halliday. Bloomsbury Publishing. Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2013). “Why am I paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL writers' engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87e98. Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261e278. Keck, C. (2010). How do university students attempt to avoid plagiarism? A grammatical analysis of undergraduate paraphrasing strategies. Writing & Pedagogy, 2(2), 193e222. t, C. L. (2015). Academic literacy and grammatical metaphor: Mapping development. International TESOL Journal, 10(1), 29e46. Liarde t, C. L. (2016). Grammatical metaphor: Distinguishing success. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22. Liarde t, C. L. (2018). ‘As we all know’: Examining Chinese EFL learners' use of interpersonal grammatical metaphor in academic writing. English for Specific Liarde Purposes, 50, 64e80. Lyon, A. (2009). “You fail”: Plagiarism, the ownership of writing, and transnational conflicts. College Composition & Communication, 61(2), 377. Marshall, S., & Walsh Marr, J. (2018). Teaching multilingual learners in Canadian writing-intensive classrooms: Pedagogy, binaries, and conflicting identities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 32e43. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2005). Designing literacy pedagogy: Scaffolding asymmetries (pp. 251e280). Continuing discourse on language. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Interacting with text: The role of dialogue in learning to read and write. Foreign Languages in China, 4(5), 66e80. Nance, E., Vadnais, A., Hicks, C., & Lawson, T. (2016). Insistence on cosmetically perfect fruits and vegetables. Retrieved from http://cases.open.ubc.ca/ insistence-on-cosmetically-perfect-fruits-vegetables/. Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317e345. Pecorari, D., & Shaw, P. (2012). Types of student intertextuality and faculty attitudes. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 149e164. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12, 431e459. Shi, L. (2012). Rewriting and paraphrasing source texts in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 134e148. Tomas, Z. (2010). Addressing pedagogy on textual borrowing: Focus on instructional resources. Writing & Pedagogy, 2(2), 223e250. Wette, R. (2010). Evaluating student learning in a university-level EAP unit on writing using sources. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 158e177. Wette, R. (2017). Source text use by undergraduate post-novice L2 writers in disciplinary assignments: Progress and ongoing challenges. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 46e58. Yamada, K. (2003). What prevents ESL/EFL writers from avoiding plagiarism? Analyses of 10 North-American college websites. System, 31, 247e258. Yasuda, S. (2017). Toward a framework for linking linguistic knowledge and writing expertise: Interplay between SFL-based genre pedagogy and task-based language teaching. Tesol Quarterly, 51(3), 576e606. Jennifer Walsh Marr is an academic English instructor in the Arts faculty at UBC's Vantage College, an innovative first year program for international students. For her classroom practice, she draws on critical pedagogy and discourse analysis to facilitate her students' familiarity with valued features of the disciplines. Her writing and research include the inclusion of domestic and international Indigenous activism in language courses, multilingual students' identity formation in the academy, and instructor responses to multilingual students in their writing classes.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of English for Academic Purposes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap
Making the mechanics of paraphrasing more explicit through Grammatical Metaphor Jennifer Walsh Marr University of British Columbia, Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 21 December 2018 Received in revised form 19 August 2019 Accepted 27 August 2019 Available online 5 September 2019
Paraphrasing research has often been situated as an issue of academic honesty, ownership of knowledge and discourse appropriation (Abasi, Akvari & Graves, 2006; Currie, 1998; Lyon, 2009; Pecorari, 2003; Pecorari & Shaw, 2012). This paper has a pedagogical focus, outlining how the discrete grammatical processes typical of successful paraphrasing (Keck, 2010) are used to support first year university writing students working in English as an additional language. Drawing on Halliday’s (2009) concept of Grammatical Metaphor and focusing primarily on ideas and their logical relations (known within Systemic Functional Linguistics as the ideational metafunction), shifts in form within and across clause functions are demonstrated conceptually and with explained examples. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how highlighting some functional metalanguage can break the process of paraphrasing into more explicit moves for instructional benefit. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Shifts in the discourse around paraphrasing from punitive to pedagogical The past several years of second/additional language (L2/LX) writing research, particularly that focused on English for Academic Purposes (EAP), has focused on who is (or isn't) paraphrasing properly (Pecorari, 2003; Shi, 2012) as well as the why of paraphrasing (Hirvela & Du, 2013). Investigations of students' understanding of what is and is not acceptable paraphrasing find that students' educational histories, translanguaging and disciplinary practices all play a role in producing and judging the acceptability of paraphrases (Abasi, Akvari, & Graves, 2006; Currie, 1998; Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Keck 2006, 2010; Lyon, 2009; Shi, 2012). The matter is further complicated by inconsistencies in paraphrasing (and plagiarising) practices of writing instructors (Pecorari & Shaw, 2012; Tomas, 2010) and institutions (Yamada, 2003), giving novice writers mixed messages regarding who follows which convention and why. What has been a welcome, productive turn in the literature is the shift from a punitive discourse to one that acknowledges paraphrasing as a complex process that develops over time (Keck, 2010; Wette, 2017). However, EAP teaching materials that demonstrate how to paraphrase are not yet as plentiful and comprehensive as they could be. This curricular project has been an attempt to make more explicit the discrete steps that facilitate L2/ LX students' appropriate re-representation of other scholars' work in their texts, helping them move beyond merely critiquing the acceptability of a paraphrase and expected citation practices to participating as novice scholars in discourse communities. The trends in the research literature that have more closely examined the who and why of paraphrasing are paralleled in how most of the available EAP teaching resources gloss over explicit instruction of how to paraphrase. I liken this to a
E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100783 1475-1585/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2
J. Walsh Marr / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 42 (2019) 100783
mysterious ‘black box’ into which we have very little visibility of the discrete language shifts that happen between the original source ‘input’ and the expected paraphrase ‘output’. What happens in between these two texts in the shift from others' original to suitable paraphrase has not had adequate attention for the purposes of pedagogy, remaining too long out of reach for too many students. This mystery is similar to how proficient (typically L1 or ‘native speaker’) academic writers and instructors refer to their process of “osmosis” in learning to write (Marshall & Walsh Marr, 2018), where the processes, components and deployment of strategies for paraphrasing have remained frustratingly opaque to both students and often instructors. Paraphrasing strategies require a “host of interconnected subskills” (Hirvela & Du, 2013, p. 88) that themselves demand more significant investments of time and lower-stakes practice than many students who are enrolled in tertiary studies have the luxury of taking. Wette's (2010) action research acknowledged the complexities of the process of paraphrasing and the need for deeper pedagogy, describing the state of literature as “more problem-oriented than solution-oriented or practice-oriented” (p. 159). I suggest a key piece of the solution is Grammatical Metaphor from Systemic Functional Linguistics (hereafter SFL): the rept, 2015; resentation of meaning through a shift from one grammatical form to another (Halliday, 2009, Devrim, 2015; Liarde 2016; 2018). Yasuda (2017) uses SFL in task based language teaching (TBLT), distinguishing between target tasks to accomplish a goal (writing a particular type of text), and pedagogic tasks (the teaching tasks to support the development of bits of language required to accomplish said goals). Employing this distinction, paraphrasing can be seen as the task and Grammatical Metaphor its pedagogic backbone. In sharing my research to practice here, I aim to make explicit a feature of functional grammar to EAP instructors who may be working in non SFL-informed contexts (as is common in tertiary education in North America). This paper shares teaching materials and some of the process of their development for an embedded, first year academic writing course for L2/LX students with an upper intermediate (IELTS 5.5/CEFR B1-B2) proficiency of English. I aim to open the ‘black box’ of SFL and shed some light for non-SFL specialists on the phenomenon of Grammatical Metaphor, the shift from one grammatical form to another (Halliday, 2009), to inform both EAP teachers and the explicit teaching of paraphrasing. 2. Pedagogy and teaching resources: introducing metalanguage and Grammatical Metaphor We begin our course with the concept of the three concomitant metafunctions of SFL. These metafunctions can serve as lenses through which we look at what is going on in a text, and give us a shared language with which to talk about these features and functions, as “intertextual comparison can not go very far without a specialised vocabulary to tease out differences and similarities between texts.” (Butt, Fahey, Feez, Spinks, & Yallop, 2000, p. 8). Our limited range and use of metalanguage in simplified terms embodies Martin and Rose's (2007) warning to “only use those technical terms that we need to consolidate understandings and make them portable, so that they can be used easily for as wide a range of analytical tasks as possible” (p. 3). The bulk of this paper and pedagogical intervention focuses on the IDEATIONAL metafunction, builds lexicogrammatical resources for students, and highlights how experiential and logical meanings can be rearranged for successful paraphrasing. Drawing on knowledge our students typically have already, the terminology we use within the ideational metafunction draws on formal grammar terms common in most other pedagogical contexts: Processes are typically manifest as verbs and verb groups, Participants typically as nouns and/or nominal groups (including some adjectives and prepositional phrases that may modify head nouns within those Participants), and Circumstances are manifest as adverbs, prepositional phrases, and a few nominal groups (Derewianka, 2011). The analytical task outlined below serves to reinforce a central theme of the course; that there are different language choices for different purposes and audiences that all writers need to take into consideration for ‘successful’ writing. In everyday, informal interactions (non-academic discourse), Processes (verbal groups) are more central to events, resulting in a more immediate sense of ‘who is doing what’. SFL considers this form congruent, not having shifted away from reality in any way. In academic discourse, however, meaning gets packed into lexically dense nouns through the process of nominalization (essentially the ‘making of nouns’), the cornerstone of Grammatical Metaphor. Nominalization means various verbs' hapt, 2016). penings are reworked through metaphor as phenomena: things that happen (Devrim, 2015; Halliday, 2009; Liarde Nominalization makes phenomena seem more stable, allowing for analysis and expanded relations between phenomena and t, 2016; Schleppegrell, 2001). is a distinct feature of academic writing (Liarde To illustrate these ‘typical’, expected or ‘congruent’ realizations, we can use the following sentence: Children consume too many soft drinks. Here, the noun, children, congruently realizes the Participant, the verb, consume, congruently realizes the Process, and the nominal group, too many soft drinks, congruently realizes another Participant. Children
consume
too many soft drinks.
Participant Noun (nominal group)
Process Verb (verbal group)
Participant Nominal group
Alternatively, the meanings expressed here could be reconstrued incongruently, or metaphorically, allowing a writer to “pack up” the information provided in the original. For example, the original Process, consume, combined with the descriptive
J. Walsh Marr / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 42 (2019) 100783
3
meanings from the second nominal group, too many, can be nominalized to become the head noun overconsumption in the newly formed Participant: Children's overconsumption of soft drinks … Children's overconsumption of soft drinks Participant Noun (nominal group)
Process Verb (verbal group)
Participant Nominal group
This shift from an entire clause (“Children consume too many soft drinks.“) to an elaborated Participant not only represents rudimentary Grammatical Metaphor, but, as the Process and Participant slots are ready to be filled, also an opportunity to say and do more with this phenomenon of “children's overconsumption of soft drinks …” Experientially, the nominalization of ‘consume’ makes it a thing to study and discuss, a key feature of academic practice (Halliday, 2009; Schleppegrell, 2001). Textually, with the rest of the sentence to be completed, the nominalization of the clause into a Participant gives the writer the rest of the clause to expand into discussing causes, implications, or related phenomena. In this example, we see a Process such as “consume” become “consumption”, but there can be several typical shifts and stages along the way that happen within Grammatical Metaphor as representation moves from congruence (the here and now) to metaphorical forms: logical relations (such as “because”) move from being between clauses to manifesting as Circumstances (“because of x” or “as a result of x”), premodifying adjectives within Participants (“causal factors”) to, most metaphorically, nominalized Participants (“a cause”). For comprehensive charting of typical changes, please see the “Grammatical Metaphor” chapter in The Essential Halliday (2009) and Devrim (2015). Our teaching materials work through several examples such as that above to build repertoires of these typical shifts for students’ reference and deployment in their own paraphrasing development. 3. Student tasks: deconstructing and reconstructing paraphrases employing Grammatical Metaphor To highlight the features and shifts of Grammatical Metaphor, we situate most of our lessons with the deconstruction (Martin & Rose, 2005, pp. 251e280) of highly-valued student texts to analyse how such texts are constructed, gaining deeper understanding of what they say as well as the linguistic components used to put the meaning together. The focus on existing texts also validates students' valuing of source texts as models, and our deconstructive analysis expands their use beyond being just temptingly ‘perfect’ models to copy. While there is acknowledgement in the less-punitive plagiarism/paraphrasing literature that ‘copying’ and ‘patchwriting’ may well be a developmental step in students' writing repertoires (Hirvela & Du, 2013; Pecorari, 2003), the value-added that deconstruction offers is an explicit focus on what language features are manifest in these model texts and their function in satisfying the purpose of the text, as “… unless analyzed, [those features] might remain hidden from learners” (Yasuda, 2017, pp. 579e580). Incorporating attention to the deconstruction of existing, model texts and their features helps students appreciate the meaning constructed through particular language choices. We work on not only reading like a reader (i.e. for meaning), but also ‘reading like a writer’; as in, how do other authors construct their meaning and paraphrase their own source texts? After introducing the concept of Grammatical Metaphor, we task students with identifying the specific linguistic changes (both lexical and grammatical) made in excerpts that are ‘unpacked’ (rendered more congruent), then those same excerpts ‘packed up’ (summarized through Grammatical Metaphor). As they deconstruct these paraphrases, they draw on their existing knowledge of formal grammar, deploy their developing familiarity with functional metalanguage, and build a repertoire of typical shifts to deploy in their own paraphrases. Example 1.
Original:
“Food loss is defined as the edible food that is lost throughout production, postharvest, and processing, whereas food waste refers to edible food lost at the end of the food chain due to behaviour of retailers and consumers” (Nance, Vadnais, Hicks, & Lawson, 2016). Unpacked (made more congruent): Food loss is food we can eat but that we discard while it is being produced, after it is harvested or while it is being processed. Food waste is food that we can eat but that we throw away at the end of the food chain because retailers and consumers choose not to sell or eat it (Nance et al., 2016). Some of the shifts from the original with Grammatical Metaphor to congruence include: Premodifying adjective ‘edible food’ is unpacked to post modifying embedded clause ‘food we can eat’ Nominalizations ‘production, post harvest and processing’ are unpacked as passive Processes (verbs) ‘is being produced,. is harvested, … being processed’ Causal meaning of ‘due to’ within a Circumstance becomes Logical relator ‘because’ between clauses
4
J. Walsh Marr / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 42 (2019) 100783
Packed (made more metaphorical): Food that is edible but discarded during production is known as food loss, whereas food discarded once it has reached the market is called food waste (Nance et al., 2016). In the final paraphrase, all the information is packed into a compound clause with the following components: Food that is edible but discarded during production
is known as
food loss
Participant Nominal group
Process Verbal group
Participant Nominal group
whereas
food discarded once it has reached the market
is called
food waste.
Logical relator Text connector
Participant Nominal group
Process Verbal group
Participant Nominal group
In the example, we see how embedded clauses such as ‘food we can eat’, ‘we discard’ and ‘while it is being produced’ can become adjectives (‘edible’ and ‘discarded’) and reduced post modifiers (‘during production’). Example 2.
Original:
“Some food loss is unavoidable for health and safety reasons, however, the consumers' demand for cosmetically perfect fruits and vegetables has created an unnecessary amount of waste” (Nance et al., 2016). Unpacked (made more congruent): We cannot avoid throwing out some food because we want to protect people's health and safety. However, because consumers want cosmetically perfect fruits and vegetables, too much food is thrown out (Nance et al., 2016). Packed (made more metaphorical): The protection of health and safety means some food loss is inevitable, although excessive waste results from market demands and standards (Nance et al., 2016). In this example we highlight: the inevitability of food loss as either Participant (‘unavoidable’, ‘inevitable’) or Process (‘cannot avoid’), the rationale as Circumstance (‘for health and safety reasons’), dependent clause (‘because we want to protect people's health and safety’) and Participant (‘the protection of health and safety’) market forces as Participant (the consumers' demand’), clause (‘consumers want … ‘) and the abstracted Participant ‘market demands and standards’. In addition to focusing students’ gaze on deconstructing original and paraphrased texts, we also help them build their repertoire of common paraphrasing techniques with a list and comprehension check of other typical metaphorical shifts, supported with contextualized examples: Shifting sentences: Two independent clauses become a compound complex sentence (with conjunction). Note how the clauses are rearranged in the final example: Food waste occurs at different points in the FSC. However, it is most readily defined at the retail and consumer stages. Food waste occurs at different points in the FSC, although it is most readily defined at the retail and consumer stages. Or: Although it is most readily defined at the retail and consumer stages, food waste occurs at different points in the FSC. Shifting sentences: Two independent clauses become a compound sentence (with gerund to show how something is done): This paper presents results from a driver review of food waste issues. It combines information on food waste from the international literature with supply chain experts. This paper presents results from a driver review of food waste issues, combining information on food waste from the international literature and interviews with supply chain experts. Switching polarity (positive/negative): Cosmetically Perfect Fruits and Vegetables meet aesthetic standards …
J. Walsh Marr / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 42 (2019) 100783
5
Cosmetically imperfect fruits and vegetables refer to produce which is considered visually substandard … Cosmetically imperfect produce, not satisfying various physical characteristics, … Participant or Circumstance? Oftentimes, people discard cosmetically imperfect produce, resulting in food waste or food loss. (Participant). Produce that does not meet these standards is often thrown away, and can be classified as either food loss or food waste. (Participant). … produce outside these norms tends to be discarded at some point along the production and/or distribution chain. (Circumstance). Produce that is too small, too large or misshapen is considered cosmetically imperfect and tends to be discarded, either before or after reaching the consumer. (Circumstance). Modifying quality within a Participant, or as a Participant (Attribute)? Produce that conforms to normative standards of physical characteristics is considered cosmetically perfect (Participant). Cosmetically imperfect fruits and vegetables … (quality/premodification of Participant). Pre or post modification of the Head Noun within a Participant: Produce that is too small, too large or misshapen … Oversize, undersize or misshapen produce … Circumstance or embedded in Process? Produce that does not meet these standards is often thrown away. (Circumstance). Often, produce that does not meet these standards is thrown away. (Circumstance). Produce outside these norms tends to be discarded (within Verbal group/Process). 4. Joint reconstruction After having completed a deconstruction of samples and armed with the list of common sample shifts above, we work together to jointly construct a new paraphrase, with the following guiding questions to help students unpack and identify the Processes, Participants, Circumstance and stance of the source text: What's this about? What are the Processes? Who/what is involved? (Participants) What are the relations between these Participants? What are the Circumstances around this? Which ideas are most important? How is the author saying this? What impression (feeling) do you have? The guiding questions serve not only to help students identify the components before manipulating their form and function, but also serve to underline how paraphrasing is not just an exercise in writing; it relies on comprehension of the source material. Paraphrasing itself “… provides insight into how well students read (since comprehension is the first step toward paraphrasing) as well as write.” (Hirvela & Du, 2013, p. 88). It is essentially the why of EAP; students are primarily engaged in either paraphrasing their own ideas (either from their L1 or LX) or incorporating others’ ideas (from external sources) into coherent new texts with expected, valued language features of the discipline and assignment. Our task of identifying the Processes and the Participants involved helps students see how the components are used to generate meaning, and how they can be manipulated through common Grammatical Metaphorical shifts for paraphrasing. 5. Assessment and extension To draw students' attention to the standards expected of their paraphrases, as well as to build both community in the class and linguistic resources among its members, students complete peer assessment of draft paraphrases using the simple rubrics
6
J. Walsh Marr / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 42 (2019) 100783
below. I have artificially separated language features from meaning (admittedly anathema to Halliday's philosophy of language) so as to have students value and analyse both. These rubrics also represent paraphrasing as a sophisticated skill that develops on a continuum. Meaning 0
1
The paraphrase has significant The meaning has completely changed errors or changes that confuse the meaning of the original. through errors or misrepresentation of the original.
2
3
4
The main ideas from the original are recognizable, but the paraphrase has some changes in meaning.
Most of the main ideas are correct, but there are some differences in word meaning or stance from the original.
The paraphrase and original convey exactly the same meaning and stance (positioning/attitude)
Language features 0
1
2
3
4
The paraphrase has very few vocabulary and grammar changes from the original. No citation of the original source.
Most of the grammatical structures are the same, but some vocabulary have been changed. No, incomplete, or inaccurate citation of the original source.
Some language features from the original are recognizable, but the paraphrase has some changes in vocabulary and/or grammar. Includes an accurate citation of the original source.
The paraphrase has significant grammar and vocabulary changes but still some recognizable features from the original (not including special terminology & proper nouns). Includes an accurate citation of the original source.
There are few, if any, recognizable vocabulary or clausal structures recognizable from the original (except special terminology & proper nouns). Includes an accurate citation of the original source.
Careful readers will note the reference to “stance (positioning/attitude)” in the rubric; this is a reference to the Intert’s (2018) article on Interpersonal personal Metafunction. Due to the limits of space in this article, I refer you to Liarde Grammatical Metaphor in which modality is employed to increase objectivity, hedge claims and expand interpersonal engagement (dialogic space). 6. Nominalization, Grammatical Metaphor and their role in paraphrasing The major focus of our paraphrasing activities is revealing the phenomenon of Nominalization and Grammatical Metaphor, the representation of meaning through a shift from one grammatical form to another (Halliday, 2009). Establishing the form and function of Processes, Participants and Circumstances gives us the metalanguage to label not only the components of content, but make explicit the grammatical shifts that typically occur in paraphrasing. The various shifts in form are fundamental to Keck’s (2010) analysis of the linguistic features of “successful paraphrases” revealing that in the strongest samples, “students made revisions at the clause element level. That is, they divided the original excerpt into its major components (e.g. subject, main verb, direct object) and transformed them into new units (typically of a different grammatical form) that expressed the same idea” (Keck, 2010, p. 216). Wette's (2010) description of her instructional resources for teaching L2 writers to incorporate sources appropriately in their work included tasks that not only matched paraphrased excerpts with the original sources (a useful attention to meaning), but also “discussing the types of transformation that can and need to be made” (p. 170). By giving the components names and functions, and looking closely at the shifts they make in paraphrases, we are building a focused toolkit of components to analyse and manipulate. The analysis of grammatical changes manifest in successful paraphrases is essentially peeking into that mysterious “black box” of paraphrasing to see how the components interact with one another in typical shifts and features valued in academic discourse. All the moving parts in the process of paraphrasing bring to mind Keck's (2010) own conclusion, that “paraphrasing is an incredibly complex skill that requires a high level of grammatical competence and lexical knowledge” (p. 216). And yet there have not been many teaching resources that contextualize that grammatical competence, particularly through a functional lens. In addition to building students' vocabularies, “It seems that metaphorical language choices are crucial in developing the kinds of meanings necessary for a successful summary. These language choices enable the reduction, generalization, and integration of information from the source in such a way that plagiarism is avoided” (Drury, 1991, p. 452). In introducing Grammatical Metaphor early in our EAP course, we establish reference points and metalanguage to build on throughout the remainder of the course. Establishing Grammatical Metaphor as a key phenomenon of academic writing gives it a name and helps students recognize when it happens and/or is needed through the duration of the course. A list of typical metaphoric shifts provides developing writers with an expanded toolkit to deploy and build upon through their academic English language development. Instead of opaque instructions to “put it in your own words”, EAP instructional materials need to reveal the key components of meaning and the concrete grammatical shifts that occur in the process of paraphrasing. The sample activities here
J. Walsh Marr / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 42 (2019) 100783
7
are an attempt to make explicit the mechanics of Grammatical Metaphor to better inform EAP instruction, ultimately to let students in on and build a repertoire of skills in an otherwise nebulous, yet high stakes, process. Acknowledgement I would like to thank the reviewers of earlier versions of this manuscript for their careful attention to improve its development and clarity. I am humbled by their encouragement, generous suggestions and overall investment in this article. Of course, any oversights are solely my responsibility. References Abasi, A., Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 102e117. Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2000). Using functional grammar. Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 1e18. Derewianka, B. (2011). A new Grammar companion for teachers. Primary English Teaching Association Australia. Devrim, D. Y. (2015). Grammatical metaphor: What do we mean? What exactly are we researching? Functional Linguistics, 2(1), 3. Drury, H. (1991). The use of systemic linguistics to describe student summaries at university level. Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses, 431e457. Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007). Plagiarism and second language writing in an electronic age. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 161e183. Halliday, M. A. K. (2009). The essential Halliday. Bloomsbury Publishing. Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2013). “Why am I paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL writers' engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87e98. Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261e278. Keck, C. (2010). How do university students attempt to avoid plagiarism? A grammatical analysis of undergraduate paraphrasing strategies. Writing & Pedagogy, 2(2), 193e222. t, C. L. (2015). Academic literacy and grammatical metaphor: Mapping development. International TESOL Journal, 10(1), 29e46. Liarde t, C. L. (2016). Grammatical metaphor: Distinguishing success. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22. Liarde t, C. L. (2018). ‘As we all know’: Examining Chinese EFL learners' use of interpersonal grammatical metaphor in academic writing. English for Specific Liarde Purposes, 50, 64e80. Lyon, A. (2009). “You fail”: Plagiarism, the ownership of writing, and transnational conflicts. College Composition & Communication, 61(2), 377. Marshall, S., & Walsh Marr, J. (2018). Teaching multilingual learners in Canadian writing-intensive classrooms: Pedagogy, binaries, and conflicting identities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 32e43. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2005). Designing literacy pedagogy: Scaffolding asymmetries (pp. 251e280). Continuing discourse on language. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Interacting with text: The role of dialogue in learning to read and write. Foreign Languages in China, 4(5), 66e80. Nance, E., Vadnais, A., Hicks, C., & Lawson, T. (2016). Insistence on cosmetically perfect fruits and vegetables. Retrieved from http://cases.open.ubc.ca/ insistence-on-cosmetically-perfect-fruits-vegetables/. Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317e345. Pecorari, D., & Shaw, P. (2012). Types of student intertextuality and faculty attitudes. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 149e164. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12, 431e459. Shi, L. (2012). Rewriting and paraphrasing source texts in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 134e148. Tomas, Z. (2010). Addressing pedagogy on textual borrowing: Focus on instructional resources. Writing & Pedagogy, 2(2), 223e250. Wette, R. (2010). Evaluating student learning in a university-level EAP unit on writing using sources. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 158e177. Wette, R. (2017). Source text use by undergraduate post-novice L2 writers in disciplinary assignments: Progress and ongoing challenges. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 46e58. Yamada, K. (2003). What prevents ESL/EFL writers from avoiding plagiarism? Analyses of 10 North-American college websites. System, 31, 247e258. Yasuda, S. (2017). Toward a framework for linking linguistic knowledge and writing expertise: Interplay between SFL-based genre pedagogy and task-based language teaching. Tesol Quarterly, 51(3), 576e606. Jennifer Walsh Marr is an academic English instructor in the Arts faculty at UBC's Vantage College, an innovative first year program for international students. For her classroom practice, she draws on critical pedagogy and discourse analysis to facilitate her students' familiarity with valued features of the disciplines. Her writing and research include the inclusion of domestic and international Indigenous activism in language courses, multilingual students' identity formation in the academy, and instructor responses to multilingual students in their writing classes.