user1
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
AIM OF THE RESEARCH
The concept of voice is not new but voice in academic writing has only become the focus of theoretical attention in recent years. However, the theoretical research has not been matched by empirical research or pedagogical applications of voice(Canagarajah 2015:122). Voice in written language has since developed to play an important role in advanced academic discourse in the 21st century. Writing is a crucial part of students’ academic career, although it is seldom explicitly taught. Academic writing is distinct from other forms of writing and is referred to as “knowing how to speak and act in academic discourses” (Boughey 2000:282), and for many students writing remains a challenge.
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to provide background to and a rationale for the study and give an overview of the current state of knowledge on voice as a writing strategy. In order to justify this research endeavour the gaps and limitations of the currently available literature are pointed out. I first provide a brief history of research on writing development linked to the emergence of voice. This is followed by an overview and problematisation of English as a dominant language in education, with reference to the distinctions between English as a first language (L1) and English as an additional language (EAL) within the global context and in South Africa. Subsequently, I briefly discuss doctoral writing as academic discourse, with specific reference to the salience of the conceptual and interactional nature of a thesis, the challenges linked to writing a thesis, and the need for formal training as well as the importance of establishing a voice in doctoral writing. The chapter concludes with an overview of the empirical research that has been conducted on voice as a writing strategy, specifically in doctoral writing.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The choice of the research design is supported by an explanation of the interpretivist ontology and constructivist epistemology as methodological underpinnings of the study to align with the socio-constructivist foundation of the theoretical framework of this research. Furthermore, the nature of qualitative research is discussed and the choice of an explorative instrumental case study and consequential research methods is justified.
THE NOTION OF VOICE
Voice as a heterogeneous notion
When exploring the literature on voice, the reader is met with a cacophony of disparate definitions, conceptualisations, approaches and applications. To substantiate this statement, this section will introduce the heterogeneity of approaches, in particular to “written voice” (singular), or “voices” (plural) (Yancey 1994:xi). Yancey’s (1994:vii) paradoxical experience resonates with my own: “The more I seemed to know about it, the less certain I became, and the less I actually knew”.
2Adapted Engagement Framework
In their introduction to The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English, Martin and White (2005:1) explain that the purpose of their book of modelling appraisal resources was to develop and extend the SFL interpretation and longstanding theoretical approach of the interpersonal aspects of language with a new approach of Appraisal in a functional model of language. The Appraisal Framework, including the subsystem of Engagement, functions at the level of discourse semantics (Martin & White 2005:33). However, it is a framework that is profoundly theoretical and lacks a practical pedagogical exposition. Thus I shall propose certain adaptions that would both simplify and augment the Engagement Framework, which may serve as a heuristic tool in pedagogical contexts.
Appraisal and SFL indebtedness
The Appraisal Framework takes its roots in Halliday’s Language as a social semiotic (1978) and An introduction to functional grammar (1985). Halliday addresses the semantic levels as well as the lexico-grammatical and discursive levels of texts in his SFL and proposes how meanings are built up across a text. SFL posits that language is structured to simultaneously make three kinds of meanings and constitute relationships. The three kinds of “metafunctions” (ideational, interpersonal and textual) that constitute relationships are indicated in Figure 2 below.
Metadiscourse and the postmodern turn
As features and concepts in linguistics and applied linguistics often develop organically, metadiscourse also developed and changed into different categories. Swales already realised this flexibility and metamorphosis in practice in 1990 when he remarked that “although the concept of metadiscourse is easy to accept in principle, it is much more difficult to establish its boundaries” (Swales 1990:188; see also Hyland 2005a:16 with reference to a similar remark by Nash 1992).
Metadiscourse and the postmodern turn
As features and concepts in linguistics and applied linguistics often develop organically, metadiscourse also developed and changed into different categories. Swales already realised this flexibility and metamorphosis in practice in 1990 when he remarked that “although the concept of metadiscourse is easy to accept in principle, it is much more difficult to establish its boundaries” (Swales 1990:188; see also Hyland 2005a:16 with reference to a similar remark by Nash 1992).
Empower
Hovering between promoting agency and teaching and instruction, ‘empowering’ is subsumed under the heading ‘recommendation’ on the voice continuum. Empowering is closely related to promoting agency and entails capacitating students. Empowerment functions on two levels: ‘empowering by’ and‘empowering with’. It is apt to recognise that ‘empowerment’ in this context closely resonates with ‘empowerment’ in the Academic Literacies tradition (see Chapter 3 section 5.4.2 above) which wields agency and empowerment to bring about change (Cadman 2000), especially in offering students a way to maintain control over their personal and cultural identities.
CONCLUSION
The complex ways in which the participants in this study approached voice, raised both questions and exposed paradoxes about perceptions of voice in doctoral thesis writing. The data on the perceptions of supervisors and doctoral students yielded richinformation which translated into four main categories (super families). First, certain assumptions of voice are regarded as non-negotiables in doctoral writing; second, the salience of notions enabling voice; and third, impediments of voice, which confirm the uncertainty and complexity of voice. Last, a wealth of data on voice as construct both validated and pointed out gaps in the literature.
Chapter 1 AIM OF THE RESEARCH
2. CHAPTER OVERVIEW
3. CONTEXT AND RATIONALE
3.1 Brief history of writing research
3.2 English as the dominant language in higher education
3.2.1 International L1 and EAL writing practices
3.2.2 South African L1 and EAL writing practices
3.3 The nature and challenges of doctoral writing
3.3.1 Doctoral writing as academic discourse
3.3.2 Doctoral writing as both conceptual and interactional
3.3.3 Doctoral writing in South Africa
3.3.4 The need for formal training in doctoral writing
Chapter 2 DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Philosophical underpinnings and epistemology
3.2 The nature of qualitative research
3.3 Research design: case study
3.4 Sampling and site selection
3.5 Data collection.
4. DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Data analysis approaches
Chapter 3 THE NOTION OF VOICE: A LITERATURE REVIEW
2. THE NOTION OF VOICE
2.1 Voice as a heterogeneous notion
2.2 Relationship between voice and writing
2.3 History of voice
3. LINGUISTIC THEORIES OF VOICE
3.1 Constructivism and socio-constructivism
Chapter 4 MODELS OF VOICE: THE APPRAISAL FRAMEWORK AND METADISCOURSE
1. INTRODUCTION
2. APPRAISAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 History of Appraisal
2.2 Appraisal and SFL indebtedness
2.3 Appraisal subcategories
2.3.1 The Engagement Framework
2.3.2 Adapted Engagement Framework
3. HYLAND’S MODEL OF METADISCOURSE
3.1 History and context of metadiscourse
Chapter 5 TOWARDS A PEDAGOGY OF VOICE
2. REALITIES IN A PEDAGOGY OF VOICE
2.1 Reality of academic writing as a site of struggle
2.2 Establishing a nexus between voice and academic writing
2.3 Finding voice in academic writing as a ‘struggle’
3. PEDAGOGICAL GRADING SCALE OF VOICE
Chapter 6 PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
1.1 Introduction of code frame
1.2 Legend of abbreviations used for supervisor and doctoral student
respondents
1.3 The effect of the respondents’ cultural, linguistic and/or gender orientations on their perceptions of voice
2. ASSUMPTIONS OF VOICE
2.1 Voice as process
2.2 Product quality
2.3 Disciplinary focus
2.4 Generic core
