First Major Approach to the Study of Language: Composition ...
|Major Approach to the Study of Language: |
|Composition Studies |
| |
|This first approach to the study of language is all about composition—historical aspects, theory and pedagogy, and basic writing. I|
|see this section as the complement to my interest in second language writing theory and pedagogy by specifically establishing a |
|foundation from which to explore the murky, problematic space between first and second language writing. Ultimately, the lists in |
|this first area represent a point where several major questions intersect: How does the distinctly “American” foundation of |
|composition pedagogy play a role in the politics of both mainstream and basic writing theory? How does the “quasi-ESL” atmosphere |
|of the basic writing classroom bridge (or widen) the gap between traditional first year composition and second language writing? |
|And how does institutional discourse at both the macro level (policymakers and writing scholars) and micro level (teachers and |
|students in the classroom) construct and control different images of “good writing,” how it’s taught, for what purposes it should |
|serve, and who has the potential to be a good writer in the first place? |
I. History
|This list provides an historical overview of the development of writing pedagogy, specifically in how the field of composition has |
|its roots in the creation of the “American university,” and how the different schools of thought emerged within the field through |
|struggle and negotiation for professional identity and a place within the university. |
Berlin, J. (1987). Rhetoric and reality: Writing instruction in American colleges, 1900-1985. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Connors, R. (1997). Composition-rhetoric: Backgrounds, theory and pedagogy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Crowley, S. (1998). Composition in the university: Historical and polemical essays. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Faigley, L. (1992). Fragments of rationality: Postmodernity and the subject of composition. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Goggin, M. (2000). Authoring a discipline: Scholarly journals and the post-World War II emergence of rhetoric and composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harris, J. (1997). A teaching subject: Composition since 1966. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Miller, S. (1991). Textual carnivals: The politics of composition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
II. Theory and Pedagogy
|This list addresses in detail the different “controversies” that have shaped the schools of thought within the field of composition|
|studies, how these oft-turbulent theories inform (or are distanced from) practice, and where the field currently finds itself in |
|regard to the connection between theory and pedagogy. |
Carroll, L. A. (2002). Rehearsing new roles: How college students develop as writers. Carbondale: SIU Press.
Fulkerson, R. (1996). The Toulmin model of argument in the teaching of
composition. In B. Emmel, P. Resch, and D. Tenney (Eds.), Argument revisited;
Argument redefined (pp. 654-687). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fulkerson, R. (2005). Composition at the turn of the twenty-first century. CCC, 56(4), 654-687.
Halasek, K. (1999). A pedagogy of possibility: Bakhtinian perspectives on composition studies. Carbondale: SIU Press.
Kent, T. (Ed.). (1999). Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Miller, R. (1994). Fault lines in the contact zone. College English, 56, 389-408.
Pratt, M. L. (1999). Arts of the contact zone. In G. Stygall (Ed.), Academic discourse: Readings for argument and analysis (pp. 481-495). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers. (Original work published 1991)
Tate, G., Rupiper, A., & Schick, K. (Eds.). (2001). A guide to composition pedagogies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Villanueva, V. (1997). Cross-talk in comp theory: A reader. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Selections:
• Bartholomae, D. Writing with teachers: A conversation with Peter Elbow. 479-488.
• Bartholomae, D. Inventing the university. 589-620.
• Bartholomae, D., & Elbow, P. Interchanges: Responses to Bartholomae and Elbow. 501-510.
• Berlin, J. Contemporary composition: The major pedagogical theories. 233-248.
• Bizzell, P. Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about writing. 365-390.
• Bizzell, P. “Contact zones” and English studies. 735-742.
• Bruffee, K. Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” 393-414.
• Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. 77-96.
• Elbow, P. Being a Writer vs. being an Academic: A conflict in goals. 489-500.
• Flower, L., & Hayes, J. A cognitive process theory of writing. 251-276.
• Hairston, M. Diversity, ideology, and teaching writing. 659-676.
• Hartwell, P. Grammar, grammars and the teaching of grammar. 183-212.
• Kinneavy, J. The basic aims of discourse. 107-118.
• Myers, G. Reality, consensus, and reform in the rhetoric of composition teaching. 415-439.
• Trimbur, J. Consensus and difference in collaborative learning. 439-456.
Vitanza, V. (1991). Three countertheses: Or, a critical in(ter)vention into composition
theories and pedagogies. In P. Harkin & J. Schilb (Eds.), Contending with words: Composition and rhetoric in a postmodern age (pp. 139-172). New York: MLA.
III. Basic Writing
|The readings in this list investigate how disadvantaged students negotiate their status as “remedial writers” separate from the |
|mainstream and the proposed strategies these students (and their writing teachers) can use to achieve academic success, both in the|
|composition classroom and in their academic lives in general. |
Bizzell, P. (2000). Basic writing and the issue of correctness; or, What to do with “mixed” forms of academic discourse. Journal of Basic Writing, 19(1), 4-12.
Brodkey, L. (1997). On the subjects of class and gender in “The literacy letters.”
In V. Villaneuva (Ed.), Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A reader (pp. 639-658). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (Original work published 1989)
Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. (Original work published 1970)
Halasek, K., & Highberg, N. P. (Eds.). (2001). Landmark essays on basic writing. Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press. Selections:
• Bartholomae, D. The tidy house: Basic writing in the American curriculum. 171-184.
• Bizzell, P. What happens when basic writers come to college? 15-22.
• Delpit, L. The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. 83-102.
• Stygall, G. Resisting privilege: Basic writing and Foucault’s author function. 185-204.
Horner, B., & Lu, M.-Z. (1999). Representing the "other": Basic writers and the teaching of basic writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Lunsford, A. (1997). Cognitive development and the basic writer. In V. Villaneuva (Ed.), Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 277-288). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (Original work published 1979)
Mutnick, D. (1996). Writing in an alien world: Basic writing and the struggle for equality in higher education. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Perl, S. (1997). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. In V. Villaneuva (Ed.), Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 17-42). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (Original work published 1979)
Rose, M. (1997). Narrowing the mind and page: Remedial writers and cognitive reductionisim. In V. Villaneuva (Ed.), Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 323-364). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (Original work published 1988)
Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shaughnessy, M. P. (1997). Diving in: An introduction to basic writing. In V. Villaneuva (Ed.), Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A reader (pp. 289-296). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (Original work published 1976)
Soliday, M. (2001). Ideologies of access and the politics of agency. In G. McNenny (Ed.), Mainstreaming basic writers: Politics and pedagogies of access (pp. 55-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Soliday, M. (2002). The politics of remediation: Institutional and student needs in higher education. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Stygall, G. (1999). Unraveling at both ends: Anti-undergraduate education, anti-affirmative action, and basic writing at research schools. Journal of Basic Writing, 18, 4-22.
Villanueva, V. (1997). Considerations for American Freireistas. In V. Villanueva (Ed.), Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 621-638). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (Original work published 1991)
Second Approach to the Study of Language:
Second Language Writing and Academic Literacy
| |
|This second approach to the study of language moves from mainstream composition theory and basic writing studies to specifically |
|looking at how second language writers negotiate identity in the face of the complex and problematic notion of “academic literacy.”|
|The Second Language Writing list aims to provide an account of how this field has developed parallel to the emergence of major |
|theories in composition studies, yet has also remained at a distance due to unique demands that second language acquisition |
|theories place on writing theory and pedagogy. The Academic Literacy and Second Language Writers section provides an overview of |
|work that is already being done in defining “academic literacy” and exploring how English language learners (and writers) acquire |
|this literacy. And the Contrastive Rhetoric section provides a background in looking specifically at the role culture and |
|culturally constructed notions of logic and reality play in understanding how second language writers negotiate and acquire |
|academic literacy. |
I. Second Language Writing
|These readings examine the theory and pedagogy of second language writing by exploring the “controversies” in the field in relation|
|to those in first language writing, and by tracing the paradoxical history of how second language writing has developed as a field |
|by borrowing heavily (yet simultaneously remaining distant) from composition theory and pedagogy. |
Casanave, C. (2003). Controversies in second-language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in L2 writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in the second language classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Matsuda, P. K. (2006). Second language writing in the Twentieth Century: A situated historical perspective. In P. K. Matsuda, M. Cox, J. Jorday, & C. Ortmeier-Hooper (Eds.), Second language writing in the composition classroom: A critical sourcebook (pp. 14-30). Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Matsuda, P. K. & Silva, T. (Eds.). (2001). Landmark essays on ESL writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Matsuda, P. K. & Silva, T. (Eds.). (2005). Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Selections:
• Atkinson, D. Situated qualitative research and second language writing. 49-64.
• Blanton, L. L. Mucking around in the lives of others: Reflections on qualitative research. 149-158.
• Brice, C. Coding data in qualitative research on L2 writing: Issues and implications. 159-176.
• Casanave, Uses of narrative in L2 writing research. 17-32.
• Ferris, D. Tricks of the trade: The nuts and bolts of L2 writing research. 223-234.
• Hyland, K. Digging up texts and transcripts: Confessions of a discourse analyst. 177-191.
• Li, X. Composing culture in a fragmented world: The issue of representation in cross-cultural research. 121-134.
• Silva, T. On the philosophical bases of inquiry in second language writing: Metaphysics, inquiry paradigms, and intellectual zeitgeist. 3-16.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
II. Academic Literacy and Second Language Writers
|Here, I am specifically interested in looking at how the different interpretations of the problematic term “academic literacy” |
|shape and constrain how writing is taught to English language learners, and how, ultimately, ability to negotiate the “writing |
|games” of academic literacy determines academic success or failure and affects the identities of not only second language writers, |
|but second language writing teachers. |
Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 539-568.
Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45-75.
Casanave, C. (2002). Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices in higher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Elbow, P. (1999). Individualism and the teaching of writing: Response to Vai Ramanathan and Dwight Atkinson. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 327-338.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. London and New York: Longman.
Johns, A. (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of
labor. In V. Villanueva (Ed.), Cross-talk in comp theory: A reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 773-796). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Matsuda, P. K., Cox, M., Jordan, J., & Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (Eds.). (2006). Second language writing in the composition classroom: A critical sourcebook. Bedford/St. Martin’s. Selections:
• College Composition and Communication. CCCC statement on second language writing and writers. 10-13.
• Canagarajah, S. Understanding critical writing. 210-224.
• Chiang, Y-S. D., & Schmida, M. Language identity and language ownership: Linguistic conflicts of first-year writing students. 89-102.
• Currie, P. Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. 364-379.
• Harklau, L. From the “good kids’ to the ‘worst’: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. 103-130.
• Land Jr., R. E., & Whitley, C. Evaluating second-language essays in regular composition classes: Toward a pluralistic U.S. rhetoric. 324-332.
• Matsuda, P. K., & Silva, T. Cross-cultural composition: Mediated integration of US and international students. 246-259.
• Reid, J. ‘Eye’ learners and ‘ear’ learners: Identifying the language needs of international students and U.S. resident writers. 76-88.
• Rubin, D. L., & Williams-James, M. The impact of writer nationality on mainstream teachers’ judgments of composition quality. 351-363.
• Silva, T. On the ethical treatment of ESL writers. 154-158.
Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. (2000). Genres, authors, discourse communities: Theory and application for L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 171-192.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J., & Feak, C. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Zamel, V., & Spack, R. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing the curriculum: Multilingual learners in college classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
III. Contrastive Rhetoric
|This list looks at both the historical and more recent critical aspects in contrastive rhetoric and the theory that logic and |
|rhetoric are culturally and socially constructed. I look to this list to provide another dimension in my exploration of the space |
|between composition theory and second language writing, and the students and teachers who occupy this space. |
Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 625-654.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 493-510.
Connor, U. (2005). Comment by Ulla Connor. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(2), 132-136.
Connor, U., & Kaplan, R. B. (Eds.). (1986). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hinds, J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese,
Korean, Chinese, and Thai. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspective (pp. 87-109). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kassabgy, N., Ibrahim, Z., & Aydelott, S. (2004). Contrastive rhetoric: Issues, insights, and pedagogy. American University in Cairo Press.
Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 69-100.
Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9-35.
Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 7-27.
Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2005). Response to Ulla Connor's comments. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14 (2), 137-143.
Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123-143.
Matsuda, P. K., & Silva, T. (Eds.). (2001). Landmark essays on ESL writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Selections (see Second Language Writing section for the rest of the essays in this book):
• Hinds, J. Reader-writer responsibility: A new typology. 63-74.
• Kaplan, R. B. Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. 11-26.
• Matsuda, P. K. Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. 241-256.
|Textual Focus: |
|Perspectives in Second Language Education |
| |
|This Textual Focus centers on major issues in the theories of second language acquisition, theories of language and identity, and |
|the use of discourse analysis as a research paradigm, all with the purpose of supporting my interest in exploring the space between|
|first and second language writing and how the complex notion of academic literacy is awkwardly wedged between this space. I look to|
|second language acquisition theory to provide a general theoretical background for better understanding English language learners |
|who are also writers; I look to the major theories in language and identity as a central means for exploring the implications of |
|the multiple, contradictory, and hybrid identities that language learners (and teachers) must negotiate in the process of learning |
|to write (and learning to teach writing) in a second language; and I look to discourse analysis as a research paradigm for |
|exploring how academic institutions construct different versions of academic literacy and writing “realities” at the macro level, |
|and how the use of discourse analysis—particularly narrative analysis—can better illuminate at the micro level how both students |
|and teachers successfully negotiate the complexities of learning how to write and how to teach writing. Rather than a question for |
|this Textual Focus, I prefer to have the subsections of Second Language Acquisition (generally) and Language and Identity |
|(specifically) overlap with the question for the Second Language Writing and Academic Literacy section (Approach 2), and the |
|Discourse Analysis subsection overlap with the question for the Composition Studies section (Approach 1). |
I. Second Language Acquisition
|These readings examine the major theories in SLA, including a bit of history and some of the classics in the field on |
|interlanguage, universal grammar, input and output, focus on form, and sociocultural theory. |
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom SLA. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Dunn, W., & Lantolf, J. (1998). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and
Krashen’s i+1: Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning, 48, 411-442.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental
concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285-300.
Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT
Journal, 52, 301-307.
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z.
Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.1-19). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-
100.
Kasper, G. (1997). “A” stands for acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 81, 307-312.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Lantolf, J. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81,
318-323.
Mackey, A., & Philip, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language
development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Chapter 2: The monitor model. In Theories of second language
learning (pp. 19-58). London: Edward Arnold.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London:
Hodder and Stoughton Educational.
Pica, T. (1994). Review article—Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about
second-language learning conditions, processes, and, outcomes? Language
Learning, 44, 493-527.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10,
209-231.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook &
B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in
Honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
White, L. (2000). Second language acquisition: From initial to final state. In J. Archibald
(Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 130-155). Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
White, L., & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate
attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12,
233-265.
II. Language and Identity
|This list looks at the major theories in the study of language and identity, specifically in how second language learners negotiate|
|multiple, hybrid, and contradictory identities. I look to this list to serve as a springboard for investigating how second language|
|writers negotiate, acquire, and, at times, resist the notion of academic literacy. |
Arteaga, A. (Ed.). (1994). Another tongue: Nation and ethnicity in the linguistic borderlands. Durham: Duke University Press.
Blackledge, A. (2002). The discursive construction of national identity in multicultural
Britain. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 1(1), 67-87.
Block, D., & Cameron, D. (2002). Globalization and language teaching. London:
Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645-668.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 33, 185-209.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
De Fina, A. (2003). Identity in narrative: A study of immigrant discourse. Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Duff, P.A., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers’ sociocultural identities and
practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 45-48.
Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japanese returnees betwixt two worlds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kells, M. H. (2002). Linguistic contact zones in the college writing classroom: An examination of ethnolinguistic identity and language attitudes. Written Communication, 19(1), 5-43.
Kramsch, C., and Lam, W.S. E (1999). Textual identities: The importance of being non-native. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English Language Teaching (pp. 57-75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Li, X.-M. (1999). Writing from the vantage point of an outsider/insider. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 43-55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McKay, S. L., & Wong, S-L. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 577-608.
McNamara, T. (1997). What do we mean by social identity? Competing frameworks, competing discourses. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 561-567.
Mitchell, K. (2001). Education for democratic citizenship: Transnationalism, multiculturalism, and the limits of liberalism. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 51-78.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 159-171). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Norton Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9-31.
Ogulnick, K. (2000). Language crossings: Negotiating the self in a multi-cultural world. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Pavelenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.). (2004). Negotiational identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pavlenko, A. (2001). In the world of the tradition, I was unimagined: Negotiation of Identities in cross-cultural autobiographies. International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(3), 317-344.
Philipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. New York: Longman.
Ricento, T. and Wiley, T. G. (Eds.). (2002). Language, identity, and education and the challenges of monoculturalism and globalization. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 1(1), [introduction to special issue Jan 2002].
Samimy, K., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999). To be a native or non-native speaker: Perceptions of “non-native” students in a graduate TESOL program. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 127-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sonntag, S. K., & Pool, J. (1987). Linguistic denial and linguistic self-denial: American ideologies of language. Language Problems and Language Planning, 11(1), 46-65.
Tierney, W. G. (1993). Self and identity in a postmodern world: A life story. In D. McLaughlin & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Naming silenced lives: Personal narratives and processes of educational change (pp. 119-134). New York: Routledge.
Tse, L. (2000). The effects of ethnic identity formation on bilingual maintenance and development: An analysis of Asian American narratives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3(3), 185-200.
Verhoeven, L. T., & Stromqvist, S. (2001). Narrative development in a multilingual context. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
III. Discourse Analysis
|These readings give me a methodological framework for using traditional discourse analysis and critical discourse analysis to |
|examine the discourses that comprise the construction of academic literacy, specifically in relation to how basic writing and |
|second language writing studies are positioned in relation to mainstream composition studies. |
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barton, E., & Stygall, G. (Eds.). (2002). Discourse studies in composition. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (Eds.). (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York and London: Routledge.
Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. (Reference)
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Locke, T. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. New York and London: Continuum.
Meyer, M., Titscher, T., Vetter, E., & Wodak, R. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis: In search of meaning. London: Sage.
Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. London: Routledge.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D., Schiffrin, D., & Hamilton, H. (2003). The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. (Reference)
van Dijk, T. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as social interaction (Vol. 2). London: Sage. Selections:
• Blum-Kulka, S. Discourse pragmatics. 38-63.
• Drew, P., & Sorjonen, M-L. Institutional dialogue. 92-118.
• Mumby, D. K., & Clair, R. P. Organizational discourse. 181-205.
• van Dijk, T. Discourse as interaction in society. 1-37.
• van Dijk, T., Ting-Toomey, S., Smitherman, G., & Troutman, D. Discourse, ethnicity, culture, and racism. 144-180.
• West, C., Lazar, M. M., & Kramarae, C. Gender in discourse. 119-143.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- common rubric for high school writing samples
- 5th grade writing rubric
- english 004 basic writing
- example of a simple report
- first major approach to the study of language composition
- collaborative learning in the basic writing classroom
- english 51 basic composition
- 7th grade essay format summary
- esol entry 1 reading and writing excellence gateway
- basic composition 355 100r r7
Related searches
- the study of social science
- the study of words etymology
- why is the study of business important
- what is the study of philosophy
- economics is primarily the study of quizlet
- the importance of language learning
- the study of logical argument
- the study of philosophy
- the study of logic
- the study of political science
- discuss the relevance of language learning
- the importance of language environment