"Invention and Identification Through Intertextual Appropriation of Academic Discourse"
About the AuthorGeorge Shamshayooadeh teaches English composition and literature at The National Hispanic University in San Jose, California. He is currently completing a Ph.D. in English at Old Dominion University with twin emphases is rhetoric-composition and literary studies. He holds two master’s degrees in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) and English Literature. George has also taught at a number of community colleges in Northern California as well as San Jose State University. Prior to his work in Silicon Valley, he taught English composition and literature courses at a number of universities and institutions in Tehran, Iran, including the Islamic Open (Azad) University, College of Foreign Languages. His research interests are diverse and vary from composition theory and pedagogy to narratology and postcolonial fiction. Contents |
Course ArrangementThus, a thematic arrangement of curricular activities and readings would be adopted so that students would be exposed to multiple readings, excerpts, and articles on a given topic or theme with varying viewpoints and arguments. They would be expected to become familiar and well-versed in various arguments and positions along with their pros and cons on specific topics. Throughout the process, they would be urged to position their arguments by selecting, using, and appropriating the different arguments and ideas they have internalized and use linguistic signs including formal rhetorical devices, borrowed ideas, and linguistic cues (such as the related terms or jargon) in order to become part of the conversation on a given topic. Consequently, discourse communities in the composition classes would have more of an ad hoc nature, which would be dependent on the topic under consideration. Similarly in online classes, X. Liang, et al. note that to create a complex, interactive instructional experience online, the instructor should employ “interactive elements, a task-oriented approach to discussion and authentic scenarios presenting a situated learning environment,” which may be dubbed a community of inquiry and student cognitive presence (217). The authors conclude that adopting “a discussion strategy” which engages “learners in meaningful interaction and instructional experiences should contribute to learners’ achievement of higher-level learning” (225). They advise online instructors to initially “provide the learners with pre-structured threads to guide the learner,” which in turn will be followed by role play or forced discussion, thus allowing students the freedom to examine the issues at hand with more depth and flexibility. They contend that this approach would result in the integration of information and the development of higher level knowledge. At the center of these online “communities of inquiry” is the dialogic reciprocity that is set in motion by posing authentic and provocative question that challenge students and prompt them to think inquisitively and write critically. In her seminal study on academic writing and textual identity construction, Roz Ivanic postulates four interrelated components: autobiographical self, discoursal self, self as author, and possibilities for selfhood. Of particular relevance to this discussion are autobiographical self and self as author. The latter pertains to such issues as establishing authority within the context of academic writing and the extent to which student-writers present themselves as authoritative to join the disciplinary conversations. In this respect, any textual decisions and choices that the writers make, as Abasi, Akbari, and Graves aptly note, “are simultaneously decisions of self representation and identity construction” (104). This is the opportune moment for writers to identify with the disciplinary positions by aligning themselves with certain positions and arguments within the germane discourse community by using appropriate, shared ideas, images, and terminology (i.e. linguistic signs) that are addressed toward those within the discourse community that need to be persuaded of the validity of their position. Part of the construction of textual identity is the “representation of self as intertextually knowledgeable” and “self-alignment with the privileged discourse” by becoming familiar with the major debates within the discourse community that would make individual writers appear as legitimate participants who can make valuable contributions (Abasi, Akbari, and Graves 107-108). Thus, both identification and addressivity become useful in this intertextual framework by directing the textual choices that students make in order to identify with the disciplinary debates and positions within the discourse communities. Hence, in this composite, intertextual framework, the construction of authorial/textual formation and addressivity become inextricably intertwined. In the intertextual context of academic writing, writers would also be expected to represent themselves as authors by taking a stance vis-à-vis the topic under consideration and projecting the image that they have something to say in order to make a contribution to conversation on the given topic. Consequently, combining the Burkean term identification with the Bakhtinian concepts of addressivity and appropriation as the organizing conceptual premises within the intertextual context would prove instrumental in directing student writing into productive participation within an intertextual framework. This composite framework would be useful in fostering a rich, productive environment, which would be conducive to generating nuanced writing based on intertextual knowledge and positionality. As Bazerman aptly points out, “intertextuality is not just a matter of which other texts you refer to, but how you use them, what you use them for, and ultimately how you position yourself as a writer to them to make your own statement” (94). |