Understanding voice in Chinese students’ English writing

Journal Pre-proof Understanding voice in Chinese students’ English writing

Fengjuan Zhang, Ju Zhan PII:

S1475-1585(19)30113-4

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100844

Reference:

JEAP 100844

To appear in:

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Received Date:

19 February 2019

Accepted Date:

13 January 2020

Please cite this article as: Fengjuan Zhang, Ju Zhan, Understanding voice in Chinese students’ English writing, Journal of English for Academic Purposes (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap. 2020.100844

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier.

Journal Pre-proof

Understanding voice in Chinese students’ English writing Fengjuan Zhang & Ju Zhan School of Second Language Education, Jilin University, Changchun, China

First author: Fengjuan Zhang has a PhD in applied linguistics and is now professor of English at Jilin University, China. Her research interests are second language writing, second language teaching and second language teacher education.

Corresponding author: Ju Zhan has a PhD in TESL and is now professor of English at Jilin University, China. Her research interests are second language writing, second language teaching and sociolinguistics. Email: [email protected]

Funding: This work was supported by the Humanities and Social Science Fund of the Ministry of Education of China [grant number 16YJC740088]; the National Social Science Foundation of China [grant number 14BYY080]; and the International Innovation Team Project [grant number 2019GJTD02].

Journal Pre-proof Understanding voice in Chinese students’ English writing

Abstract: Voice is an important topic in academic writing research, but there have been limited attempts to understand the voice of second language writers from diverse backgrounds. This article aims to achieve a thorough and up-to-date understanding of Chinese students’ voice in English academic writing by adopting a holistic and dynamic perspective to examine factors influencing Chinese students’ voice. The article first critiques previous claims about the negative, deterministic influence of traditional Chinese culture and language on students’ voice and adopts a more positive and agentive view of voice in relation to language and culture. Then it moves on to analyze the influence of various educational factors on Chinese students’ voice development, which has largely been overlooked in previous discussion on this topic. After examining how the dynamic changes in Chinese culture, language, and education in a globalized society may impact Chinese students’ voice development, the article further suggests that these broader contextual factors interact with the more immediate context of writing to shape the complexity of Chinese students’ voice in English. This work has implications for curriculum, pedagogy, and teacher development in various writing contexts.

Keywords: academic writing; voice; Chinese students; Chinese culture

Journal Pre-proof Understanding voice in Chinese students’ English writing

1. Introduction

Voice has aroused considerable attention in academic writing research in recent years (Canagarajah, 2015; Hyland & Sancho Guinda, 2012; Matsuda & Tardy, 2007; Stock & Eik-Nes, 2016; Tardy & Matsuda, 2009). Despite increasing research interest, voice has remained a contentious topic largely due to its “polysemous nature” (Tardy, 2012, p. 34). Some researchers argued that voice is a Western, individualistic construct, which may be difficult to acquire by second language writers from “collectivist cultures” (Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999; Ramanathan & Kaplan, 1996). Stapleton (2002) also approached from the individual dimension of voice and expressed skepticism over the emphasis of voice in academic writing. But as the theoretical understanding of voice deepens, the idea of voice as an individualistic concept unique to Western countries has been challenged, and there is increasing consensus that voice is both social and individual (Hirvela & Belcher, 2001; Hyland, 2008; Matsuda, 2001; Prior, 2001; Tardy, 2012). This shift in the conception of voice has great implications for understanding the relevance of voice in academic writing. It also highlights the need to move beyond traditional cultural concerns and seek new understanding of second language writers’ voice-related issues and experiences. Such a reexamination may contribute to a deeper understanding of second language writers’ voice and allow us to develop effective strategies to help them become better writers in academic contexts. 1

Journal Pre-proof However, as Canagarajah (2015) and Tardy (2016) pointed out, research on the voice of second language writers has not kept pace with the developments in theoretical understanding of voice. A review of the literature suggests that although the cultural explanation for second language writers’ voice has been challenged for several years, there have been limited efforts to explore alternative explanations (Canagarajah, 2015; Matsuda, 2001; Stock & Eik-Nes, 2016), which could result in inadequate understanding of the experiences and difficulties of voice construction for second language writers. More endeavors are needed to achieve further insights into the voice-related issues and problems of second language writers from diverse backgrounds and to inform classroom practices. Chinese students are often considered to have difficulties developing appropriate voice in English writing, but apart from some early influential work which suggested the possible influence of traditional Chinese culture and rhetoric on Chinese students’ voice (Fu & Townsend, 1998; Matalene, 1985; Shen, 1989), there has not been much recent work to examine the complex nature of Chinese students’ voice from other perspectives and to update our understanding of it in view of recent theoretical advances and empirical evidence. This issue is especially salient given the increasing relevance and importance of voice for Chinese student writers. In China, more and more students are learning to write in English for academic purposes and international publication. Also, Chinese students are pursuing further education in Western countries in increasingly large numbers, and voice is one of the major challenges that they need to tackle in order to meet the expectations of Western university professors 2

Journal Pre-proof (Lan, 2015; Wang, 2011). All these highlight the importance of more work to enhance our understanding of voice-related issues for Chinese learners of English, on the basis of which effective writing instruction can be designed to facilitate their voice development. In this article, we strive to achieve an in-depth understanding of Chinese students’ voice in English academic writing by adopting a holistic and dynamic perspective to examine factors influencing Chinese students’ voice. This perspective brings together various strands of research examining the cultural, linguistic, educational, and contextual factors affecting Chinese students’ voice in English writing and highlights the interconnectedness of these factors. It also emphasizes the changing nature of the Chinese context in which students develop their voice in English. Using this perspective, we begin by tracing the changing role of Chinese culture and language in a globalized society, critiquing previous claims about the negative, deterministic influence of traditional Chinese culture and language on students’ voice, and adopting a more positive and agentive view of voice in relation to language and culture. We then move beyond the traditional linguistic and cultural explanations of Chinese students’ difficulty with voice to examine the influence of various educational factors on Chinese students’ voice development. Finally, we suggest that these broad linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds of the student writers interact dynamically with the immediate context of writing to shape the complexity of Chinese students’ voice in English academic writing.

3

Journal Pre-proof Many scholars have pointed out that voice has been defined differently based on different theoretical positions and research interests (Matsuda, 2015; Tardy, 2012). In our work, we adopt the understanding of voice as being socially and dialogically constructed, which encompasses individual, social, and dialogical dimensions (Canagarajah, 2015; Matsuda, 2001, 2015; Tardy, 2012). This social-constructivist understanding will guide our discussion about previous studies of Chinese students’ voice in English. In some cases, we may cite studies which use different definition of voice and we will make clear the distinction. We hope by examining the dynamic, complex social context in which Chinese students learn to write as well as new research insights in the field, this work can contribute to an in-depth, balanced, and up-to-date understanding of Chinese students’ voice in English academic writing and shed light on voice-related issues for second language writers from similar international contexts.

2. Voice and Chinese culture

Early writing on Chinese student writers often alludes heavily to the influence of collectivism oriented cultural background (Carson, 1992; Hinkel, 2001; Scollon, 1991; Young, 1994). Some scholars explicitly linked Chinese students’ difficulties in voice and other aspects of English writing with the Chinese culture. For example, Matalene (1985) based on her experience teaching English in China and evaluating Chinese student’s English composition, argued that Chinese students’ lack of personal voice and individuality in English writing may have to do with the Chinese values of 4

Journal Pre-proof respecting authorities and accepting tradition. Several early personal accounts by Chinese scholars also seem to provide support for this cultural view, among which the most well-known example is Shen (1989). In his engaging narration of how he struggled to negotiate between the old “Chinese self” and the new “English identity” when writing in English to meet the expectations of American university professors, he described how English writing conventions such as the use of “I” and “myself” instead of “we” went against his long-held cultural values (p. 460), and how notions such as “be yourself” (p. 460) caused his confusion. This study has been cited extensively as a telling example of how L2 writers’ cultural background can influence their voice in English. Apart from early personal accounts, many research studies, including recent ones, also tend to attribute the gaps between Chinese students’ voice and “Western” voice to the influence of the Chinese “collectivist culture”, such as Ouyang and Tang’s (2008) study of individualized voice in Chinese college students’ argumentative writing and Ma and Song’s (2017) corpus analysis of the academic voice of Chinese L2 writers and English L1 writers. It seems that an association between Chinese culture and Chinese students’ difficulties with voice in English has been implicitly acknowledged in the minds of many second language writing researchers and writing teachers. This reliance on the cultural explanation for Chinese learners’ difficulties with voice in English can be problematic in many ways. First, it is not supported by sufficient research evidence. Very often, claims are made based on personal accounts 5

Journal Pre-proof (e.g., Gale, 1994; Shen, 1989) and speculations rather than empirical evidence. In addition, many empirical studies along this line are either small-scale case studies or are limited to the examination of certain linguistic features that can be isolated, especially the use of first person pronoun, which can only offer a glimpse into voice rather than allowing a full understanding of this notion (Stock & Eik-Nes, 2016). Since culture is such a complex and elusive concept (Atkinson, 1999, 2004, 2016), it is very important to have clear definition and careful interpretation when investigating cultural influence on Chinese students’ writing development in order to fully account for the complexity involved in this process. In contrast with the lack of convincing research evidence showing the negative influence of Chinese culture on students’ voice development, there is increasing research providing counter evidence to the cultural explanation. To start with, some studies suggest no strong link between Chinese students’ voice and their “collectivist” cultural background (Zhao, 2019). Further, research has shown that there is great variability among Chinese student writers in terms of voice development in English (Wang, 2011). Although earlier accounts of Chinese students’ voice development tended to focus on the challenges, an increasing number of recent studies have reported Chinese students’ successful experiences of constructing voice in English academic writing (Jarratt, Losh, & Puente, 2006; Que & Li, 2015; Wang, 2011), suggesting that individual differences or other contextual factors may play a larger role than national culture. Second, the cultural explanation for Chinese students’ difficulty with voice may 6

Journal Pre-proof create stereotypes of Chinese student writers and carry negative pedagogical implications. Previous studies claiming that Chinese students lack voice in English writing are often based on a narrow definition of voice as an individual construct rooted in Western individualism and thus inaccessible to students from the so-called “collectivist cultures”. But as increasing research suggests, voice is present in different forms in every culture (Hirvela & Belcher, 2001; Hyland, 2008; Matsuda, 2015; Tardy, 2012). It can be constructed differently by students from different cultural backgrounds, as demonstrated by Matsuda’s (2001) study of the distinct voice in Japanese written discourse. Also, in You’s (2010) historical study of English composition in China, he found that Chinese students historically wrote in English with distinct and critical voice, which is “vocalized in a devil’s tongue, mediated by the evolving dialogue of modernity, inside a Chinese Burkean parlor” (p. 9). Therefore, second language writers will inevitably bring their previous voice into the new context of English learning, creating multiple voices in writing. If second language teachers still hold the beliefs that voice as Western, individualistic construct (according to Jeffery, 2011, which studied American secondary English teachers’ perceptions of voice in student writing, this is often the case.) can be difficult to acquire by second language writers from the so-called “collectivist cultures” such as China, they may come to the conclusion that voice is not teachable to Chinese students, or fail to understand and appreciate the previous voice that the students bring to their English writing classes, thus making inappropriate pedagogical judgment and decisions. As Canagarajah (2015) revealed about his own progressive understanding 7

Journal Pre-proof of the voice of a Japanese student taking his course, it is very easy for teachers to make assumptions about students coming from a certain cultural background, which may negatively affect classroom teaching and learning. Third, it should be noted that the early but highly influential writing about the difficulties faced by Chinese students with voice construction such as Shen (1989) was largely based on the experiences of previous generations of Chinese who grew up before the reform and open-up policy of China. In the past few years, tremendous changes have taken place in all walks of life which should have affected the life experiences of more recent generations of Chinese students. According to Hirvela and Belcher (2001), second language writers’ life experiences can significantly impact their voice construction. A recent study by Que and Li (2015) well illustrates the impact of the changing sociocultural context on Chinese student writers’ voice. They studied the voice in the academic writing of some Post-80s generation (the generation born in the 1980s) Chinese graduate students studying in Canada and found that these students’ voice is very different from previous generations of Chinese students. The two researchers attributed the changing voice to the “discursive features that are socially available to this generation” (p. 11) who are witnesses of China’s economic prosperity and products of the one-child policy. They also pointed out other changes that may affect the voice of the new generation of Chinese students, such as changes in linguistic influence and English education, which will be discussed below.

3. Voice and Chinese language 8

Journal Pre-proof Chinese students’ difficulties in English writing have often been attributed to transfer from their L1, which is considered to be very different from English. Since Kaplan’s (1966) highly influential yet controversial work on Chinese and English writing patterns, much research in contrastive rhetoric has examined differences between Chinese and English writing (Kirkpatrick, 1997; Liu, 2005; Mohan & Lo, 1985; Scollon, 1991). In particular, some earlier researchers in this field have argued

that culturally unique rhetorical patterns such as the eight-legged essay, which used to be a popular style of essay writing in China, may contribute to Chinese students’ voice-related problems, such as being indirect, failing to express personal views, and ignoring genre differences (Cai, 1999; Kaplan, 1972; Matalene, 1985; Young, 1994). Several scholars’ accounts of their personal teaching or learning experiences seem to concur with this claim. For example, Shen (1989) considered his discomfort with directness in English such as writing topic sentences to be the result of his Chinese writing style of “clearing the surrounding bushes before attacking the real target” (p. 98), which he thought was influenced by traditional Chinese rhetoric. He explained that “The logic of Chinese composition, exemplified by the eight-legged essay, is like peeling of an onion: layer after layer is removed until the reader finally arrives at the central point, the core” (p. 98). However, later research provides increasing evidence that the eight-legged essay is no longer a popular genre in China and traditional Chinese rhetoric may not exert a great influence on contemporary Chinese students’ writing. This can be observed from many studies about contemporary Chinese textbooks, Chinese writing 9

Journal Pre-proof instruction, and Chinese students’ writing. In terms of textbook analysis, Kirkpatrick (1997, 2002) examined Chinese writing textbooks and found that the advice given in these textbooks shows strong influence of Western rhetorical style and there is no reference to the eight-legged essay let alone advice on how to write it, indicating that the eight-legged essay does not exert much influence on the contemporary writing of Mainland Chinese writers. Similarly, Liao and Chen (2009)’s comparative analysis of Chinese and English textbooks also reveals that contemporary Chinese and English argumentative writing shares many similar rhetorical strategies, such as being direct, encouraging the expression of personal opinions, and considering the audience, whereas the traditional eight-legged essays no longer exert a strong influence. As to writing instruction, Que and Li (2015) found that the Post-80s Chinese students had little knowledge of the eight-legged essay and did not think this traditional rhetoric style had much influence on their writing in Chinese, not to mention their writing and voice expression in English, because they were not trained to write in this style. An examination of Chinese students’ writing shows similar findings. Wu and Rubin (2000) studied Chinese university students’ argumentative writing in English and Chinese found that although Chinese students’ writing in English was influenced by their first language, many of the Chinese students’ essays resembled similarities with those by English speaking writers, such as being direct in expressing their opinions, which indicates the influence of English writing patterns rather than traditional Chinese rhetoric. This finding is in line with many studies suggesting that 10

Journal Pre-proof modern Chinese writing has been much influenced by exposure to English rhetoric styles, and is the result of interaction between the two languages (Kirkpatrick, 1997, 2002; Kirkpatrick & Xu, 2012; You, 2004). Ji (2011) examined the extent to which Chinese rhetorical patterns may influence Chinese university students’ writing in English. By drawing upon data from discourse analysis, text-based interview, questionnaire, and analysis of high school textbooks in China, the author argued that instead of being explicitly influenced by the eight-legged essay, Chinese students’ writing is more likely to be influenced by multiple forces in their sociocultural contexts, such as modern Chinese prose, writing instruction and writing textbooks in high school, and the washback effect of the National College Entrance Examination. This finding is in line with several studies (e.g., Wu & Robin, 2000) suggesting that a range of more immediate sources of influence rather than the traditional Chinese rhetoric may be at work in shaping contemporary Chinese students’ writing in English. It should be noted that although increasing evidence suggests that traditional Chinese rhetoric may not play as powerful roles as before, it is far from saying that Chinese students’ L1 is not relevant for their construction of L2 voice. There have been continuous efforts to examine how the writing conventions of Chinese can affect students’ writing in English. One interesting finding emerging from recent literature is that instead of viewing the Chinese language as a hindrance, as a constraining factor, the new generation of Chinese students is drawing upon their cultural and linguistic heritage to construct their desired voice in English. For instance, in Wang (2011), 11

Journal Pre-proof which is a case study of four Chinese students’ perceptions and practices of academic writing in an Australian university, one Chinese student chose to retain her unique writing style afforded by her language and cultural background in order to develop a distinct identity in English writing. Another student preferred to use Chinese idioms and proverbs in her English writing and would provide detailed explanations to help the Western audience understand the messages behind these Chinese expressions. In this case, the students embraced their Chinese language heritage in order to find their position in the dominant Western academic discourse and construct a voice they were comfortable with. Their linguistic background becomes an affordance to help them negotiate their voice rather than a hindrance. Although studies like this are still very limited in number, they do seem to suggest that the Chinese language may not necessarily be a constraining factor. It can be used agentively and creatively for the construction of desired voice by the new generation of Chinese student writers. The above discussion suggests that the influence of L1 on Chinese students’ voice in English is highly complicated because the Chinese language is constantly changing and enriching its discursive repertoire, exerting complex influence on students’ English development. Furthermore, recent research suggests that factors other than native language and cultural background may be more significant in shaping L2 students’ writing and voice (Fløttum, 2012; Hyland, 2016; Que & Li, 2015), which highlights the need to go beyond traditional linguistic and cultural concerns to seek new understandings.

12

Journal Pre-proof 4. Voice and English education in China In recent research, there is increasing discussion of the potential influence of various educational factors on Chinese student writers’ voice in English (McCarthey, Guo, & Cummins, 2005; Que & Li, 2015; Xu, 2015; Yu & Cao, 2015), which is a point largely overlooked in earlier discussion on this topic. This shift in research interest seems to suggest that many researchers are moving beyond the traditional cultural and linguistic explanations, striving to find more adequate explanations for the new generation of Chinese writers who grow up and learn English in a very different sociocultural and educational context than their older country mates. In this section, we first present an overall picture of English curriculum, instruction, and assessment in China in relation to writing, focusing on the various ways in which voice is not emphasized in China’s English education system to show how a lack of awareness and emphasis of voice in Chinese students’ learning context can impact their voice development. Then in view of recent research on the positive role of instruction in voice development and recent changes of English education in China, we suggest that education may play more positive roles in the future in developing Chinese students’ voice and English writing. In China, the national English curricula developed by the Ministry of Education (MOE) provide guidelines for English education throughout the country from elementary to secondary and post-secondary levels. In the past few years, some major changes have been made to the national English curriculums to cater to the country’s social, economic and political demands, with some changes prioritizing the role of 13

Journal Pre-proof reading and writing whereas other changes promoting listening and speaking skills. Despite all the changes, voice has never been explicitly stated as one of the learning goals of English writing. We take the College English Curriculum Requirements (2007) for an example. Its requirements for the writing skills of college English students involve structure, content, and language expression, with no mentioning of voice or similar concepts. The absence of voice in national English curricula can largely affect how it is treated in English writing instruction and assessment across the country because these activities are expected to comply with the national curricula. English writing instruction in China is typically very limited for the vast majority of English learners and usually takes up a small proportion of the general English course (You, 2004). Academic writing instruction to non-English majors is a fairly recent phenomenon and tends to be very limited (Lee & Chen, 2009; Li & Ma, 2018). Many studies have described how English writing instruction in China is often testoriented, grammar focused, and linguistically controlled, which may constrain students’ writing proficiency and voice development (Fu & Matoush, 2012; Hu, 2005; Tian & Low, 2012; Wang, 2011; You, 2004). Apart from these pedagogical constraints, a number of studies have mentioned that English language teachers in China are often ill-prepared to teach writing, not to mention the more challenging task of teaching academic writing (Ye, 2018), and many of the writing teachers have no awareness of the concept of voice in English (Spalding, Wang, Lin, & Hu, 2009). When they teach writing or evaluate students’ essays, they usually do not consider voice as an integral component (Yu & Cao, 2015). 14

Journal Pre-proof A look at the assessment and evaluation of English writing in China can also shed light on why some writing features such as voice have not received adequate attention. In high-stakes English tests such as the National Matriculation English Test, the College English Test for non-English majors, the Test for English Majors, the Graduate School Entrance English Examination and the Public English Testing System, voice is not included in the scoring rubric. Take the College English Test for an example, which is the largest English as a foreign language test in the world (Jin, 2006) with far-reaching social and educational impact in China (Garner & Huang, 2014). Its writing descriptors for the highest level include “relevant to topic, ideas clearly stated, fluent expression, cohesive, basically no linguistic errors except for minor problems” (Yang & Weir, 1998: 134). The assessment categories include some elements of content, language, and structure but have no direct consideration of voice. As this kind of English tests has strong washback effect on English instruction in China (Cheng, 2008; Garner & Huang, 2014; Jin, 2006), writing features not included in the scoring rubrics may not receive adequate attention by teachers and students. Similarly, if we examine what is good writing in China and Western countries, we can also find considerable differences. In her ethnographical study of the perceptions of writing teachers about good writing in China and the United States, Li (1996) found that many American teachers attach great importance to the notion of personal voice in student writing because ‘good writing should demonstrate the writer’s unique perspective on life’ (p. 93), whereas Chinese teachers value the moral message in student writing and feel that ‘the notion that students should find their unique voice in 15

Journal Pre-proof their writing seemed an alien notion’ (p. 93). Teachers’ perceptions of what is important and desirable in writing evaluation can affect the way they carry out writing instruction, which will in turn influence how students write. The above description shows how the lack of awareness and emphasis of voice in the Chinese educational context may contribute to students’ difficulties with voice in English. This situation is similar to many other educational contexts in which voice is not adequately addressed. It resonates with Matsuda and Jeffery (2012) who argued that the lack of previous exposure to voice instruction may cause second language students’ discomfort with voice. Meanwhile, several empirical studies have demonstrated the role of effective instruction for developing Chinese L2 writers’ voice in English academic writing. Que and Li (2015) found that the young generation of Chinese graduate students studying in Canada did not feel greatly challenged with voice issues because they took English writing courses that reinforced their academic writing skills. Zacharias (2018) revealed how classroom pedagogy contributed to a Chinese international student’s academic voice development in the American classroom. In a study of English language teachers, Shi (2003) found that the Chinese returnee teachers grasped the concept of voice in English academic writing after their training in Canada and felt more competent in their professional writing. Although the focus of this study is not on voice, it does suggest the role of education in facilitating L2 writers’ voice development. These findings highlight the role of instruction and a supportive environment in developing Chinese L2 writers’ voice in English. Recently, English education in China has undergone considerable developments 16

Journal Pre-proof in many areas, which may allow it to play a more positive and influential role in helping students grasp important writing features in English including voice. A series of new initiatives have been launched with the aim of preparing students with creativity and originality as well as strong oral and written skills to communicate effectively with the international society. In 2013, A Framework of Reference for EFL Teaching at Tertiary Level in Shanghai, which is the first academic English curriculum guideline in China, was issued. In this pioneering curriculum guideline, the writing descriptor for the higher level includes the ability to write a variety of genres using academic conventions, organization structures and styles appropriate for students’ discipline. In 2018, the Ministry of Education and the State Language Commission of China jointly issued the country’s first evaluation scale for English language ability, ‘China’s Standards of English Language Ability’, which aims at providing a national framework of reference for English language education and emphasizes the usage of English as well as the cultivation of practical English skills (Jin, Wu, Alderson, & Song, 2017; Liu, 2017). Many voice-related features have been incorporated into the framework. As this kind of national language planning initiatives unfold, we may see further impact on various aspects of English education in China, including writing.

5. Voice and the immediate context of writing

So far, we have examined how the dynamic changes in Chinese culture, language, and education over the years may impact Chinese students’ voice in English writing. 17

Journal Pre-proof These broader contextual factors have received the most attention in published research, but the more immediate context of writing, which is subject to the dynamic influence of the students’ backgrounds, also deserves careful examination. In our view, it is the dynamic interplay between Chinese students’ cultural, linguistic, and educational backgrounds and the immediate context of writing that shapes the complexity of Chinese students’ voice in English writing. The immediate context of writing features the dynamic interaction of the writer and the reader through the text in a particular discourse community. Among the various elements in the immediate context of writing, the writer plays a very important agentive role in voice construction. As Matsuda (1997) pointed out, in second language writing, the writer is not a “writing machine” which creates texts “by reproducing the pattern provided by his or her linguistic, culture or educational backgrounds” (p. 49). The writer has agency. According to Canagarajah (2015), second language writers’ voice construction is an active process of negotiating “constraint and agency, determinism and autonomy, and ascribed and acquired identities” (p. 125). They draw upon resources in their linguistic, culture or educational backgrounds to construct their desired voice. Their decision in voice construction can be affected by their life experiences, beliefs, linguistic and content knowledge, and many other personal factors apart from sociocultural influences. In the process of voice construction, the reader also plays an important role (Tardy, 2012). According to Matsuda (2001), voice is the amalgamative effect coconstructed by the writer and the reader. The background, training, role and 18

Journal Pre-proof responsibilities of the reader can all bear importance. Many studies in L2 writing have acknowledged the role of the reader in voice perception and negotiation (e.g., Hyland, 2008, 2010; Matsuda & Tardy, 2007; Morton & Storch, 2019; Tardy & Matsuda, 2009). Apart from the writer and the reader, another key element in the immediate context of writing is the discourse community. Swales (1990) suggested that a discourse community has “a broadly agreed set of common public goals” (p. 24) and “mechanisms of intercommunication among its members” (p. 25). Research has shown that the writer’s membership in a particular discourse community can influence how successful the writer negotiates the expectations and rules of the discourse community to achieve desired voice (Dressen-Hammouda, 2014; Fløttum, 2012; Hyland, 2016). Wang (2011) is a revealing case of how Chinese student writers negotiate affordances and constraints in their linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds during their interaction with various elements in the immediate context of writing to construct voice in English. The four students in this study were all aware of the difficult backgrounds between their intended readers (e.g., course lecturer and supervisor) and themselves, but they adopted different strategies to construct writer identity and cope with the challenges of academic writing in Western universities. Two of them wanted to make their writing more “Western” in order to “acculturate themselves into the Western discourse community” (p. 52) and cater to the Western audience. In order to achieve this goal, they paid particular attention to imitate native English writers’ writing styles and remained cautious about the risk of “Chinglish” in 19

Journal Pre-proof their writing. In doing so, one of them confessed feeling considerable difficulty and confusion in English writing. In contrast, two other students “expressed an ardent desire to keep or manifest their unique writing styles or characteristics” (p. 53). In order to negotiate their unique voice with the potential reader, they provided detailed explanations in their writing when talking about Chinese culture and language as well as their life and educational experiences in China. Their positive strategy of drawing upon language and cultural heritage to construct a desired voice to some extent facilitated their transition to academic writing in English. In this case, the Chinese student writers’ agency, identity, beliefs, and decision making affected the nature of their interaction with the immediate and broad contexts of writing, giving rise to the kind of voice they wanted to express and the resources they decided to draw upon in voice construction. It resonates with Canagarajah (2015) in which the Japanese student “merges resources from her Japanese language, education, and cultural heritage” in the process of negotiating voice with her course instructor (p. 135).

6. Conclusion

In this article, we have demonstrated how a holistic and dynamic perspective may contribute to our understanding of Chinese students’ voice in English academic writing. Traditionally, Chinese students’ voice in English has often been explained from cultural perspectives, which may result in oversimplification of this complex issue and lead to the deficit framing of Chinese student writers with potentially harmful pedagogical consequences. Drawing upon new theoretical advances and 20

Journal Pre-proof research insights in the field, we strive to achieve a holistic and dynamic understanding of Chinese students’ voice by examining multiple sources of influence (cultural, linguistic, educational) with a particular focus on the dynamic interplay of these broader contextual factors within the immediate context of writing across time. In this process, we highlight the changing context in which Chinese students learn to write in English and show how changes in the Chinese context may influence student voice. Although our work is not a systematic review, which may lack systematicity and may be restricted by our own experiences, we still hope this holistic and dynamic perspective may shed new light on the complexity of Chinese students’ voice in English and be relevant for understanding the voice-related issues of second language writers in similar contexts. This perspective may have implications for curriculum, teacher development, and pedagogy in various writing contexts. First of all, it may be important to highlight voice in the writing curriculum because as this article suggests, the difficulty of voice faced by Chinese students (very likely other second language writers from similar backgrounds) has a lot to do with their lack of exposure to it in their educational experiences. Several studies have shown that in US and other similar contexts, voice has been ingrained in the curriculum, instruction, and assessment at various levels of education and students who have been through these educational systems are well acquainted with the concept of voice (Matsuda & Jeffery, 2012; Matsuda, 2015). However, international students coming from different educational contexts may not have much previous experience with voice instruction and may find the notion of 21

Journal Pre-proof voice in English writing difficult to grasp. English education in these contexts and even preparation courses for IELTS or similar exams tend to focus on general writing and test-taking skills rather than issues such as voice in academic writing (Wang, 2016). Therefore, Western universities and institutions may need to take into account possible gaps between second language students’ educational background and the demand of the new context. Rich curriculum resources such as writing instruction and support, course materials and guidelines, and models of writing with appropriate voice for the discipline can be provided to guide and facilitate second language writers’ voice development in order to meet the writing demands of the new context. Meanwhile, if non-English speaking countries like China wish to prepare student with written communicative competence and facilitate the transition of those who aim to further their education overseas, it would be necessary to incorporate voice and other important concepts of writing in the English curriculum. Just as Que and Li (2015) suggested, “international higher education requires joint efforts of both the home country instruction and that of the host country in order to bridge the gap between students’ educational experiences in China and in the West” (p. 12). Next, in order to help students with voice, teachers themselves should be well prepared to teach it, because the knowledge, beliefs, and awareness of writing teachers about voice is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of voice pedagogy. This highlights the importance of professional development for writing teachers. As Li (1996) and several studies reviewed in this article suggest, English writing teachers in China tend to have limited knowledge of voice, which is a rather 22

Journal Pre-proof complicated concept, and they certainly need more training opportunities to build voice into their knowledge base. On the other hand, writing teachers in Englishspeaking countries may also benefit from continuous professional development that can deepen their understanding of the complexity of voice for second language writers and better assist them in addressing voice-related issues in their teaching contexts. Research has shown that although writing teachers in English-speaking countries tend to be familiar with the concept of voice, many of them do not have up-to-date knowledge of the theoretical and empirical advances in voice research. As Jeffery (2011) revealed, many American teachers’ understanding of voice is quite limited, largely based on the expressivist notion of voice, which may place second language writers from other cultural backgrounds at a disadvantage. Therefore, it is important for the teachers to develop transcultural sensibilities for appreciating second language learners’ written voice and to view students’ difficulties with voice more as a reflection of various sociocultural, linguistic, and educational forces interwoven together than as the simple product of their cultural heritage. This enhanced understanding and awareness on the part of writing teachers would form the basis for developing flexible and effective strategies to help second language writers with voice. Finally, in terms of pedagogy, since voice is usually not emphasized in English education in China and many other EFL contexts, it is essential to enhance students’ awareness and understanding of it and provide them with a repertoire of strategies for constructing voice in English, such as understanding the writing conventions and 23

Journal Pre-proof expectations of the discourse community, obtaining knowledge and guidance on voice construction, and seeking feedback on writing. Explicit teaching may be more effective given students’ lack of prior experience with voice. Several studies have already suggested that some second language writers prefer clear guidance and direct teaching. For example, the Japanese student in Canagarajah (2015) expected more scaffolding and directive teacher feedback because she sometimes got confused and lost direction in her writing. Shen (1989) probably would have been less puzzled if his instructors had explained in more detail the meaning of “be yourself” (p. 460) and how to accomplish it, a situation also experienced by Matsuda (2001). In addition, teachers can help students develop strategies to rise above the constraints of their backgrounds and use their linguistic, cultural, educational, and personal resources positively and creatively to construct a voice in English writing that they are comfortable with and feel proud of, as several students in Wang (2011) did. Matsuda (2015) called this “agentive” voice. Canagarajah (2015) has similarly suggested that “teachers can explore how students may negotiate constraint and agency, determinism and autonomy, and ascribed and acquired identities” (p. 125). Apart from awareness and strategies, several scholars have suggested “the development of field knowledge and audience awareness as well as an awareness of how self is situated in complex relations of power” (Matsuda, 2015, p.154), “an interactive understanding of voice” (Tardy, 2012, p. 93), and a dialogic pedagogy “with an ecological orientation to the learning environment” (Canagarajah, 2015, p.123). As more insights into pedagogical implications for voice emerge, this list can go on and on, but one fundamental point 24

Journal Pre-proof that may remain constantly relevant is that a flexible, balanced, and in-depth understanding of the learning contexts and experiences of L2 writers should be the basis for informed voice pedagogy.

References

Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33(4), 625–654. Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrasting rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes: Special Issue on Contrastive Rhetoric in EAP, 3, 277–289. Atkinson, D. (2016). Second language writing and culture. In R. Manchón, & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 545–565). Berlin: De Gruyter. Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher, & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language (pp. 231–274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cai, G. (1999). Texts in contexts: Understanding Chinese students’ English compositions. In C. R. Cooper, & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing (3rd ed., pp. 29–297). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Canagarajah, A. S. (2015). “Blessed in my own way:” Pedagogical affordances for dialogical voice construction in multilingual student writing. Journal of Second 25

Journal Pre-proof Language Writing, 27, 122–139. Cao, J. (2009). The analysis of tendency of transition from collectivism to individualism in China, Cross-cultural communication, 5(4), 42–50. Carson, I. (1992). Becoming biliterate: First language influences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(1), 37–60. Cheng, L. (2008). The key to success: English language testing in China. Language Testing, 25, 15–37. Dressen-Hammouda, D. (2014). Measuring the voice of disciplinarity in scientific writing: A longitudinal exploration of experienced writers in geology. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 14–25. Fløttum, K. (2012). Variation of stance and voice across cultures. In K. Hyland, & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 218– 231). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Fu, D., & Townsend, J. (1998). Cross-cultural dilemmas in writing: Need for transformations in teaching and learning. College Teaching, 46(4), 128–133. Gale, X. L. (1994). Conversing across cultural boundaries: Rewriting “self”. Journal of Advanced Composition, 14, 455–462. Garner, M., & Huang, D. (2014). Testing a nation: The social and educational impact of the College English Test in China. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Hinkel, E . (2001). Culture in second language teaching and learning. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and 26

Journal Pre-proof identities of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1), 83–106. Hu, G. (2005). English language teaching in China: Policies, progress, and problems. Language Policy, 4, 5–24. Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction, 1(1), 5–22. Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic disadvantage. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69. Hyland, K., & Sancho Guinda, C. (Eds.). (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jarratt, S., Losh, E., & Puente, D. (2006). Transnational identifications: Biliterate writers in a first-year humanities course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), 24–48. Jeffery, J. V. (2011). Subjectivity, intentionality, and manufactured moves: Teachers’ perceptions of voice in the evaluation of secondary students’ writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 46, 92–127. Ji, K. L. (2011). The influence of Chinese rhetorical patterns on EFL writing: Learner attitudes towards this influence. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 77–92. Jin, Y. (2006). On the improvement of test validity and test washback: The CET washback study. Foreign Language World, 6, 65–73. Jin, Y., Wu, Z., Alderson, C., & Song, W. (2017). Developing the China Standards of 27

Journal Pre-proof English: Challenges at macropolitical and micropolitical levels. Language Testing in Asia, 7 (1), 1–19. Kaplan, R . B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20. Kaplan, R. B. (1972). The anatomy of rhetoric: Prolegomena to a functional theory of rhetoric. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development. Kirkpatrick, A. (1997). Traditional Chinese text structures and their influence on the writing in Chinese and English of contemporary mainland Chinese students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(3), 223–244. Kirkpatrick, A. (2002). Chinese rhetoric by the book: What the textbooks and handbooks say. In X. Lu, W. Jia, & R. D. Heisey (Eds.), Chinese communication studies: Contexts and comparisons (pp. 245–260). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing. Kirkpatrick, A., & Xu, Z. (2012). Chinese rhetoric and writing styles: An introduction for language teachers. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 13(1), 7-27. Lan, F. (2015). A case study into the writing of Chinese postgraduate students in a UK academic environment. English Language Teaching, 8(9), 86–95. Lee, D. Y. W., & Chen, X. (2009). Making a bigger deal of the smaller words: Function words and other key items in research writing by Chinese learners. 28

Journal Pre-proof Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 281–296. Li, X. (1996). “Good writing” in cross-cultural context. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Li, Y., & Ma, X. (2018). Teaching English academic writing to non-English major graduate students in Chinese universities: A review and a transnational vision. In X. You (Ed.), Transnational writing education: Theory, history, and practice (pp. 222–243). New York: Routledge. Liao, M., & Chen, C. (2009). Rhetorical strategies in Chinese and English: A comparison of L1 composition textbooks. Foreign Language Annals, 42(4), 695– 720. Liu, L. (2005). Rhetorical education through writing instruction across cultures: A comparative analysis of select online instructional materials on argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(1), 1-18. Liu, J. (2017). China’s Standards of English and its applications in English learning, Foreign Languages in China, 14(6), 4–11. Ma, Z., & Song, L. (2017). The evolution of the image of Chinese economy in Time Magazine—A corpus-based discourse-historical analysis. Corpus Linguistics, 4(1), 62-75. Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English, 47, 789–806. Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6 (1), 45–60. Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second 29

Journal Pre-proof language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 35–53. Matsuda, P. K. (2015). Identity in written discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 140–159. Matsuda, P. K., & Jeffery, J. V. (2012). Voice in student essays. In K. Hyland, and C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in academic discourse (pp. 151–156). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Matsuda, P. K., & Tardy, C. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 235–249. Mohan, B. A., & Lo, W. A. Y. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL quarterly, 19(3), 515-534. Morton, J., & Storch, N. (2019). Developing an authorial voice in PhD multilingual student writing: The reader's perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 43(1), 15–23. Noor, R. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric in expository prose: Approaches and achievements. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 255-269. Ouyang, H., & Tang, S. (2006). Writer identity in Chinese college students’ L2 argumentative writing. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 29(2): 49-53. Prior, P. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society: Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 55–81. Que, H., & Li, X. (2015). Voices of Chinese Post-80s students in English academic writing. TESL-EJ, 19(3), 1–15. 30

Journal Pre-proof Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45–75. Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Audience and voice in current L1 composition tests: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 21–33. Scollon, R. (1991). Eight legs and one elbow: Stance and structure in Chinese English composition. Paper presented at International Reading Association, Second North American Conference on Adult and Adolescent Literacy, Banff. Shen, F. (1989). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning English composition. College Composition and Communication, 40(4), 459–466. Shi, L. (2003). Writing in two cultures: Chinese professors return from the West. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 369–391. Spalding, E., Wang, J., Lin, E., & Hu, G. (2009). Analyzing voice in the writing of Chinese teachers of English author(s). Research in the Teaching of English, 44(1), 23–51. Steering Committee of College English Teaching in Colleges and Universities in Shanghai. (2013). A framework of reference for EFL teaching at tertiary level in Shanghai (Trial Implementation). Beijing: Higher Education Press. Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students: Insights about assumptions and content familiarity. Written communication, 18(4), 506-548. Stapleton, P. (2002). Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in L2 writing: 31

Journal Pre-proof Returning the spotlight to ideas. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 177-190. Stock, I., & Eik-Nes, N. L., (2016). Voice features in academic texts – A review of empirical studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 89–99. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tardy, C. (2012). Current conceptions of voice. In K. Hyland, & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 34–48). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Tardy, C. (2016). Voice and identity. In R.M. Manchón, & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 349–363). Berlin: Mouton. Tardy, C., & Matsuda, P. K. (2009). The construction of author voice by editorial board members. Written Communication, 26(1), 32–52. Tian, J., & Low, G. D. (2012). To what extent are postgraduate students from China prepared for academic writing needed on UK master’s courses? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25 (3), 299–319. Wang, C. B. (1992). Paragraph organization in English and Chinese academic prose: A comparative study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Wang, M. (2011). Chinese postgraduate students learning to write in English: Towards an understanding of L2 academic writing. In P. L. Ha, & B. Baurain 32

Journal Pre-proof (Eds.), Voices, identities, negotiations, and conflicts: Writing academic English across cultures (pp. 41–58). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Wang, W. (2016). Intertextual practice and authorial voice of Chinese ESL students in academic writing. Linguistic Research (1), 53-67. Wu, S. Y., & Rubin, D. L. (2000). Evaluating the impact of collectivism and individualism on argumentative writing by Chinese and North American college students. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(2), 148–178. Xu, F. (2015). Examining authorial stance in Chinese second language academic writing. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 5, 1–7. Yang, H., & Weir, C. (1998). The validation study of the National College English Test (3rd ed.). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Ye, W. (2018). Overview of academic writing in China: A response to Wesley O’Morrow’s materials review, “Texts in context: Textbook choice in an evolving ELT environment”. NYS TESOL Journal, 5(1), 66–73. You, X. (2004). “The choice made from no choice”: English writing instruction in a Chinese university. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 97–110. You, X. (2010). Writing in the devil’s tongue: A history of English composition in China. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Young, L.W. L. (1994). Crosstalk and culture in Sino-American communication. New York: Cambridge University Press. Yu, X., & Cao, H. (2015). Individualized voice in Chinese college English learners’ argumentative writing. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 4, 18–24. 33

Journal Pre-proof Zacharias, N. T. (2018). Voice construction and development of a multilingual student writer: A Bakhtinian perspective. RELC Journal, OnlineFirst. Zhao, C. G., & Llosa, L. (2008). Voice in high-stakes L1 academic writing assessment: Implications for L2 writing instruction. Assessing Writing, 13(3), 153–170. Zhao, C. G. (2019). Writer background and voice construction in L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 117-126.

34

Journal Pre-proof Fengjuan Zhang: Conceptualization, Writing- Original draft preparation. Ju Zhan: Conceptualization, Writing- Reviewing and Editing.

Journal Pre-proof

Title: Understanding voice in Chinese students’ English writing

First author: Fengjuan Zhang has a PhD in applied linguistics and is now professor of English at Jilin University, China. Her research interests are second language writing, second language teaching and second language teacher education.

Corresponding author and second author: Ju Zhan has a PhD in TESL and is now professor of English at Jilin University, China. Her research interests are second language writing, second language teaching and sociolinguistics.