Developing Multilingual Writing: Agency, Audience, Identity 3031120442, 9783031120442

Table of contents :
Preface
Acknowledgments
About This Book
Contents
Abbreviations
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the Book
1.2 Theoretical Foundations
1.2.1 Multicompetence to Translingualism
1.2.2 Transfer
1.2.3 Theories of Writing Development
1.3 Focus on Agency, Audience, Identity
1.4 Specific Goals
1.5 Methodology
1.6 Overview of Parts I, II, and III
References
Part I: Development of Multilingual Writing
Chapter 2: Evolving Writer Agency: Discourse Types
2.1 This Study
2.2 Japanese Novice and Returnee Writers
2.2.1 Novice Writers: Exposition vs. Argumentation Across Languages
2.2.2 Novice Group 1 vs. Returnees: Discourse Types and Overall Quality
2.3 More Experienced Multilingual Writers
2.3.1 Justification Subtypes: R, RC/R, RS
2.3.2 Beyond Justification: Exploration-1 and Exploration-2
2.4 Conclusion
References
Chapter 3: Connecting with the Audience: Metadiscourse
3.1 This Study
3.2 Paragraph Connectors in English and Japanese
3.3 Clarifiers in English and Japanese
3.3.1 Development of Clarifier Use
3.3.2 Use of Exemplifiers
3.3.3 Use of Reformulators
3.4 Hedges and Boosters in English
3.4.1 Overview of Developing Hedge and Booster Use
3.4.2 Use of Hedges
3.4.3 Use of Boosters
3.4.4 Combining Hedges and Boosters
3.5 Reader Engagement in English
3.6 Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Working Together
3.7 Conclusion
References
Chapter 4: Constructing Writer Identity: Self-Representation
4.1 This Study
4.2 English Pronoun Use
4.2.1 How Much Personal Reference
4.2.2 Roles for “I” and “We”
4.3 Opinion Qualifiers in Japanese and English
4.3.1 Distinctive Tendencies in Japanese
4.3.2 Distinctive Tendencies in English
4.3.3 Developmental Trends Across Languages
4.4 Conclusion
References
Chapter 5: Developing Writer Identity: Voice Construction
5.1 This Study
5.2 Voice Across Groups
5.2.1 Novice Writer’s English Essay
5.2.2 Intermediate Writer’s English Essay
5.2.3 Advanced Writer’s English Essay
5.3 Voice Across Languages
5.3.1 Intermediate Writer’s Voice in L1 and L2
5.3.2 Advanced Writer’s Voice in L1 and L2
5.4 Developing Voice and Writer Identity
5.4.1 Developmental Trends
5.4.2 Voice and Writer Identity Across Languages
5.5 Conclusion: Our Model of Voice Construction
References
Part II: Interconnectedness of Agency, Audience, Identity
Chapter 6: Natsu’s Challenges: Text Construction and Identities
6.1 This Study
6.2 Natsu’s Personal History
6.3 Constructing Text in L1, L2, L3
6.3.1 Reusing Shared Features Across Languages
6.3.2 Reshaping Features in L1 and L3 Writing
6.4 Natsu’s Struggles with Micro-Level Composing
6.4.1 Interactions Between Languages
6.4.2 Writing Style and Reformulating Strategies
6.5 Conclusion
6.5.1 Motivation, Goals, and Autobiographical Self
6.5.2 Multilingual Writer’s Text Construction
References
Chapter 7: L1/L2/L3 Writers’ Advantages: Text and Process
7.1 This Study
7.2 Writers’ Text Construction Strategies
7.2.1 Common and Distinctive Strategies Across Languages
7.2.2 Individual Writer Strategies
7.3 Composing Processes
7.3.1 Common Composing Strategies
7.3.2 Individual Writers’ Distinctive Processes
7.4 Conclusion
7.4.1 Multilingual Writers’ Advantages
7.4.2 Relationship Between Text Features and Composing Processes
References
Chapter 8: Multilingual Scholars: Audience and Expertise
8.1 This Study
8.2 Accommodating Different Language Audiences
8.2.1 Kana’s L1 and L2 Writing
8.2.2 Yurie’s L1 and L2 Writing
8.2.3 Johanna’s Writer Identities Across Languages
8.3 Interacting with Different Audiences
8.3.1 Interactional Metadiscourse Categories
8.3.2 Cross-Writer Comparison
8.3.3 Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Articles
8.4 Conclusion
8.4.1 Adapting Text Features for Different Audiences
8.4.2 Dynamic Developmental Paths
8.4.3 Acquisition of Academic Writing Expertise
References
Chapter 9: Multilingual Artist and Poet: Unbounded Self-Expression
9.1 This Study
9.2 Acquiring a New Language
9.3 Developing Innovative Style
9.3.1 Haiku
9.3.2 Art Poems
9.3.3 Critical Writing
9.3.4 Translation Work
9.4 Why Choose English for Creative Writing?
9.5 Audience and Writer Identity
9.6 Conclusion
References
Part III: Synthesis and Implications
Chapter 10: Integration, Theoretical Perspectives, Pedagogical Applications
10.1 Synthesis of the Findings
10.1.1 Interrelations Among Agency, Audience, Identity
10.1.2 Development of Writer Agency, Audience Awareness, Identities
10.1.3 Dynamic Transfer and Translanguaging
10.1.4 Voice/Identity Construction
10.2 Implications for Future Research
10.2.1 Research on Multilingual Writing Development
10.2.2 Research on Dynamic Transfer
10.2.3 Research on Voice Construction
10.2.4 Research on Multilingual Writers’ Advantages
10.3 Methodological Implications
10.4 Replication of Our Studies with Other Languages
10.5 Pedagogical Applications
10.5.1 Raise Awareness of Agency, Audience, Writer Identity
10.5.2 Encourage Translanguaging in Writing Process
10.5.3 Teach Voice-Related Text Features
10.6 Final Remarks
References
Appendices
Appendix 1. Description of writer groups for Part I cross-sectional studies
Appendix 2. Basic statistics for essays by language and group
Appendix 3. Frequency of discourse types and subtypes by experienced groups and language
Appendix 4. English reader engagement subcategory use: Number of writers by group
Appendix 5. Original Japanese introduction by Exp3-3 (Translated version shown in Chap. 5, Sect. 5.3.2)
Appendix 6. Fluency measures at Stage 1 and Stage 2: Groups and Natsu (Chap. 6)
Appendix 7. Writing time, essay length, and writing fluency (Wds/Chs/Min) for four writers (Chap. 7)
Appendix 8. Composing activities identified in four writers’ TA data (Chap. 7)
Glossary
Index

Citation preview

Multilingual Education

Hiroe Kobayashi Carol Rinnert

Developing Multilingual Writing Agency, Audience, Identity

Multilingual Education Volume 42

Series Editors Hintat Cheung, Department of Linguistics & Modern Language, Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, New Territories, Hong Kong Lixun Wang, Linguistics & Modern Language Studies, Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong Editorial Board Members Feng Anwei, The University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China Kingsley Bolton, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Tae-Hee Choi, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK Ofelia Garcia, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, USA Saran Kaur Gill, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia Mingyue Gu, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, Hong Kong Hartmut Haberland, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Andy Kirkpatrick, Department of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia David C. S Li, Department of Chinese & Biling. Studies, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong Low Ee-Ling, National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore Tony Liddicoat, Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Ricardo Nolasco, University of the Philippines at Diliman, Manila, Philippines Merrill Swain, Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada Li Wei, Birkbeck College, University of London, London, UK Zhichang Xu, Monash University, Clayton, Australia Virginia Yip Choy Yin, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin,  New Territories, Hong Kong Gu Yueguo, The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China

The book series Multilingual Education publishes top quality monographs and edited volumes containing empirical research on multilingual language acquisition, language contact and the respective roles of languages in contexts where the languages are not cognate and where the scripts are often different, in order to be able to better understand the processes and issues involved and to inform governments and language policy makers. The volumes in this series are aimed primarily at researchers in education, especially multilingual education and other related fields, and those who are involved in the education of (language) teachers. Others who will be interested include key stakeholders and policy makers in the field of language policy and education. The editors welcome proposals and ideas for books that fit the series.

Hiroe Kobayashi • Carol Rinnert

Developing Multilingual Writing Agency, Audience, Identity

Hiroe Kobayashi Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences Hiroshima University Higashi Hiroshima, Japan

Carol Rinnert Faculty of International Studies Hiroshima City University Hiroshima, Japan

ISSN 2213-3208     ISSN 2213-3216 (electronic) Multilingual Education ISBN 978-3-031-12044-2    ISBN 978-3-031-12045-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12045-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

With the current advancement of digital technology, millions of people have gained more opportunities to communicate ideas within and across a variety of social contexts, where English is predominately used as a global language. While English has gained focal attention for global communication, interest in other additional languages including home languages and third languages has gained new importance. With the emergence of new interest in multilingualism and multicompetence, research concerns have expanded to include, for example, to what extent language interactions affect learners’ speaking and writing and also how English as a Second Language or a Lingua Franca influences learners’ motivation to study a third language. This book takes the perspective of writing as social action, where writers connect with their readers through the texts they construct. We are particularly interested in multilingual writers who write in two or more languages to create meaning for a variety of audiences, and how they develop the ability to write across languages. Our main purpose is to enrich the knowledge of multilingual writers’ development of writing ability while clarifying their text construction processes. Over the decades, we have conducted research on the interaction between L1 and L2 writing (and more recently L3 writing) through analysis of text and interview data. This experience led us to believe that L1 and L2 writing are not entirely separable, and developing writing ability is complex, individualized, and unending. We also found that knowing multiple languages works advantageously for multilingual writers’ text construction. In this book, we continue to explore these concerns in a more expanded way involving a variety of multilingual writers (students, professors, and a poet/artist) and different genres, including argumentation, research, and creative writing. This book can be used for two purposes, research and education. For researchers and graduate students, it provides detailed explanations and examples of innovative L2 text analysis of multiple genres to apply in other language contexts. It also breaks new ground by extending empirical analysis of L2 writing to the same writers’ L1 and L3 texts. For writing teachers, we believe the specific categories and strategies clarified in this book can be helpful for them to decide what to focus on in their teaching. More importantly, since the series of cross-sectional and case studies in v

vi

Preface

this book suggest a general developmental path from novice to advanced writers, both researchers and teachers may be able to obtain insights into where their students stand in their own individual developmental paths toward greater writing ability and what they would need to learn to grow further as multilingual writers. Since the authors of this book have been involved with teaching and researching in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context, most of the essays and interview data used for analysis were collected from participants in one such context, Japan. Thus, the major languages that we deal with are English and Japanese, but we also include a few other languages—Chinese, French, German, Korean, and Spanish—as a minor focus. Although the findings in this book may not fully apply to other specific educational contexts, we believe the analyses of nearly 200 L1 and L2 essays and reflections on their writing can offer insight into multilingual writers’ text construction processes and their development of writing across a variety of languages and contexts. Finally, we found that collaborative writing was quite challenging, but we hope that our readers can benefit from the great efforts we have put into creating a hybrid voice that reflects aspects of both of our individual voices, resonating with their multilingual perspective.  Higashi Hiroshima, Japan Hiroshima,  Japan

Hiroe Kobayashi Carol Rinnert

Acknowledgments

We wish to express our great appreciation to all the participants in our studies; without their help, this book would not have been possible. We are grateful to Akemi Katayama and Toshie Izumo for helping us to collect data and analyze Japanese essays. In addition, we would like to thank the following people for reading various parts of the book and making valuable suggestions to improve them: Nassrine Azimi, Eleanor Carson, Mayumi Fujioka, Naomi Fujishima, Michael Gorman, Keiko Hirose, Chiaki Iwai, Linda Kadota, Kyoko Matsunaga, Yoko Nogami, Yuko Otomo, Tou Ro, Jim Ronald, Miyuki Sasaki, Junko Seto, Ian Willey, Ulrike Woehr, and Masae Yuasa. We also want to express our appreciation to Eleanor Carson for reading parts of all our chapters and helping to format our tables, and to Richard Parker for his long-term support and for creating most of the figures for this book (and many other publications). We also wish to thank our two universities, Hiroshima University and Hiroshima City University, for supporting our research. Finally, we would like to extend special thanks to Alister Cumming, Rosa Manchón, and Lourdes Ortega for their encouragement and support for our research in the beginning and over the years.

vii

About This Book

This book, which draws on various theoretical approaches (including a social view of writing, multicompetence, complex systems theory, adaptive transfer, multilingual motivation, and translanguaging), contributes to ongoing efforts to integrate differing approaches to research on the development of multilingual writing. In a series of closely related studies that build on each other, we focus on how writer agency (control over text construction), audience awareness (ability to meet expectations of prospective readers), and writer identity (projection of an image of the writer in the text) progress as multilingual writers gain more experience across languages. In the studies in this book, we view writing as a social act, where writers perform the role of agent by assessing the audience, setting goals, and choosing appropriate text features from their repertoire of knowledge to communicate ideas. Writers as agents also get the reader involved by engaging in an implied dialog for clear transmission of ideas. Through chosen text features, the writers project particular discoursal (or writer) selves or identities or “voices” to the readers. While this book centers around writer’s agency, audience, and identity, it aims to shed light particularly on the relationship between writer and reader. The structure of the book consists of three parts. Part I comprises four cross-­ sectional studies (involving 103 writers and 185 essays) with a focus on text analysis across two languages (English and Japanese). Part II presents four case studies (including 11 participants) that take a close look at interconnectedness between text, audience, and identity by individual multilingual writers in two or three languages. This second section also extends the choice of genres to include discipline-specific academic writing and creative writing by involving scholars and an artist/poet in addition to students. Part III synthesizes the findings from Parts I and II, and offers theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical implications.

ix

Contents

1

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1 Purpose of the Book��������������������������������������������������������������������������    2 1.2 Theoretical Foundations��������������������������������������������������������������������    3 1.2.1 Multicompetence to Translingualism������������������������������������    3 1.2.2 Transfer ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    6 1.2.3 Theories of Writing Development����������������������������������������    7 1.3 Focus on Agency, Audience, Identity������������������������������������������������   10 1.4 Specific Goals ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   14 1.5 Methodology ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   15 1.6 Overview of Parts I, II, and III����������������������������������������������������������   20 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   21

Part I Development of Multilingual Writing 2

Evolving Writer Agency: Discourse Types��������������������������������������������   29 2.1 This Study ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   31 2.2 Japanese Novice and Returnee Writers��������������������������������������������   33 2.2.1 Novice Writers: Exposition vs. Argumentation Across Languages ����������������������������������������������������������������   33 2.2.2 Novice Group 1 vs. Returnees: Discourse Types and Overall Quality��������������������������������������������������������������   36 2.3 More Experienced Multilingual Writers ������������������������������������������   44 2.3.1 Justification Subtypes: R, RC/R, RS������������������������������������   45 2.3.2 Beyond Justification: Exploration-1 and Exploration-2 ������   55 2.4 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   60 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   64

3

 Connecting with the Audience: Metadiscourse ������������������������������������   67 3.1 This Study ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   68 3.2 Paragraph Connectors in English and Japanese��������������������������������   70 3.3 Clarifiers in English and Japanese����������������������������������������������������   76 3.3.1 Development of Clarifier Use ����������������������������������������������   77 xi

xii

Contents

3.3.2 Use of Exemplifiers��������������������������������������������������������������   78 3.3.3 Use of Reformulators������������������������������������������������������������   80 3.4 Hedges and Boosters in English ������������������������������������������������������   82 3.4.1 Overview of Developing Hedge and Booster Use����������������   83 3.4.2 Use of Hedges ����������������������������������������������������������������������   84 3.4.3 Use of Boosters ��������������������������������������������������������������������   88 3.4.4 Combining Hedges and Boosters������������������������������������������   90 3.5 Reader Engagement in English��������������������������������������������������������   91 3.6 Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Working Together ������   97 3.7 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   99 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  100 4

Constructing Writer Identity: Self-­Representation������������������������������  103 4.1 This Study ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  104 4.2 English Pronoun Use������������������������������������������������������������������������  107 4.2.1 How Much Personal Reference��������������������������������������������  108 4.2.2 Roles for “I” and “We” ��������������������������������������������������������  109 4.3 Opinion Qualifiers in Japanese and English ������������������������������������  116 4.3.1 Distinctive Tendencies in Japanese��������������������������������������  118 4.3.2 Distinctive Tendencies in English����������������������������������������  122 4.3.3 Developmental Trends Across Languages����������������������������  125 4.4 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  133 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  136

5

Developing Writer Identity: Voice Construction����������������������������������  139 5.1 This Study ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  140 5.2 Voice Across Groups ������������������������������������������������������������������������  146 5.2.1 Novice Writer’s English Essay ��������������������������������������������  147 5.2.2 Intermediate Writer’s English Essay������������������������������������  149 5.2.3 Advanced Writer’s English Essay����������������������������������������  152 5.3 Voice Across Languages��������������������������������������������������������������������  156 5.3.1 Intermediate Writer’s Voice in L1 and L2����������������������������  157 5.3.2 Advanced Writer’s Voice in L1 and L2 ��������������������������������  158 5.4 Developing Voice and Writer Identity����������������������������������������������  162 5.4.1 Developmental Trends����������������������������������������������������������  162 5.4.2 Voice and Writer Identity Across Languages������������������������  165 5.5 Conclusion: Our Model of Voice Construction��������������������������������  166 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  170

Part II Interconnectedness of Agency, Audience, Identity 6

 Natsu’s Challenges: Text Construction and Identities��������������������������  175 6.1 This Study ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  176 6.2 Natsu’s Personal History������������������������������������������������������������������  178 6.3 Constructing Text in L1, L2, L3�������������������������������������������������������  182 6.3.1 Reusing Shared Features Across Languages������������������������  183 6.3.2 Reshaping Features in L1 and L3 Writing����������������������������  191

Contents

xiii

6.4 Natsu’s Struggles with Micro-Level Composing������������������������������  195 6.4.1 Interactions Between Languages������������������������������������������  195 6.4.2 Writing Style and Reformulating Strategies ������������������������  198 6.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  201 6.5.1 Motivation, Goals, and Autobiographical Self����������������������  201 6.5.2 Multilingual Writer’s Text Construction������������������������������  202 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  204 7

L1/L2/L3 Writers’ Advantages: Text and Process��������������������������������  207 7.1 This Study ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  208 7.2 Writers’ Text Construction Strategies����������������������������������������������  211 7.2.1 Common and Distinctive Strategies Across Languages�������  211 7.2.2 Individual Writer Strategies��������������������������������������������������  212 7.3 Composing Processes������������������������������������������������������������������������  223 7.3.1 Common Composing Strategies ������������������������������������������  224 7.3.2 Individual Writers’ Distinctive Processes ����������������������������  226 7.4 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  236 7.4.1 Multilingual Writers’ Advantages����������������������������������������  237 7.4.2 Relationship Between Text Features and Composing Processes ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  239 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  241

8

 Multilingual Scholars: Audience and Expertise������������������������������������  245 8.1 This Study ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  246 8.2 Accommodating Different Language Audiences������������������������������  251 8.2.1 Kana’s L1 and L2 Writing����������������������������������������������������  251 8.2.2 Yurie’s L1 and L2 Writing����������������������������������������������������  255 8.2.3 Johanna’s Writer Identities Across Languages ��������������������  258 8.3 Interacting with Different Audiences������������������������������������������������  261 8.3.1 Interactional Metadiscourse Categories��������������������������������  262 8.3.2 Cross-Writer Comparison ����������������������������������������������������  263 8.3.3 Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Articles����������������  264 8.4 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  270 8.4.1 Adapting Text Features for Different Audiences������������������  271 8.4.2 Dynamic Developmental Paths ��������������������������������������������  271 8.4.3 Acquisition of Academic Writing Expertise ������������������������  272 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  274

9

 Multilingual Artist and Poet: Unbounded Self-Expression������������������  277 9.1 This Study ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  278 9.2 Acquiring a New Language��������������������������������������������������������������  281 9.3 Developing Innovative Style ������������������������������������������������������������  284 9.3.1 Haiku������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  285 9.3.2 Art Poems�����������������������������������������������������������������������������  287 9.3.3 Critical Writing ��������������������������������������������������������������������  289 9.3.4 Translation Work������������������������������������������������������������������  293

xiv

Contents

9.4 Why Choose English for Creative Writing? ������������������������������������  296 9.5 Audience and Writer Identity������������������������������������������������������������  297 9.6 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  300 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  302 Part III Synthesis and Implications 10 Integration, Theoretical Perspectives, Pedagogical Applications��������  305 10.1 Synthesis of the Findings����������������������������������������������������������������  306 10.1.1 Interrelations Among Agency, Audience, Identity��������������  306 10.1.2 Development of Writer Agency, Audience Awareness, Identities����������������������������������������������������������  308 10.1.3 Dynamic Transfer and Translanguaging ����������������������������  315 10.1.4 Voice/Identity Construction������������������������������������������������  320 10.2 Implications for Future Research����������������������������������������������������  321 10.2.1 Research on Multilingual Writing Development����������������  322 10.2.2 Research on Dynamic Transfer������������������������������������������  323 10.2.3 Research on Voice Construction ����������������������������������������  325 10.2.4 Research on Multilingual Writers’ Advantages������������������  325 10.3 Methodological Implications����������������������������������������������������������  327 10.4 Replication of Our Studies with Other Languages ������������������������  328 10.5 Pedagogical Applications����������������������������������������������������������������  331 10.5.1 Raise Awareness of Agency, Audience, Writer Identity������  331 10.5.2 Encourage Translanguaging in Writing Process ����������������  332 10.5.3 Teach Voice-Related Text Features ������������������������������������  333 10.6 Final Remarks ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  335 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  336 Appendices��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  343 Glossary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  349 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  353

Abbreviations

CAF Complexity, Accuracy, Fluency CA-Ref Counterargument-Refutation CST Complex Systems Theory EFL English as a Foreign Language ELF English as a Lingua Franca ESL English as a Second Language Exp1 Experienced Group 1 Exp2 Experienced Group 2 Exp3 Experienced Group 3 Expl-1 Exploration-1 Discourse Type Expl-2 Exploration-2 Discourse Type JFL Japanese as a Foreign Language Just (R) Justification Discourse Type (Reasons Only) Just (RC/R) Justification Discourse Type (Reasons, Counterargument/Refutation) Just (RS) Justification Discourse Type (Reasons, Problem/Solution) L1 First Language L1J-1 L1 Japanese Group 1 L1J-2 L1 Japanese Group 2 L2 Second Language L3 Third Language NA North American Group Nov-1 Novice Group 1 Nov-2 Novice Group 2 Nov-3 Novice Group 3 Nov-4 Novice Group 4 Ret Returnee Group

xv

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract  This chapter discusses both theoretical background and methodology for the studies in the book. Our goal is to shed new light on how writers become empowered to connect with their readers and project their identities effectively across languages, social contexts, and genres. In a series of closely related studies, we look at writers’ developing ability to construct meaning for different audiences in multiple languages. Taking the perspective of writing as a social act (Hyland K, English Specif Purp 30:286–297, 2011), we apply insights from a variety of interrelated theoretical frameworks  – including multicompetence, bi/multilingualism, writer identity, adaptive transfer, complex systems, and translanguaging. Our studies focus on how writer agency (control over text construction), audience awareness (addressing expectations of readers), and writer identity (projection of discoursal self in the text) are interrelated and progress as multilingual writers gain more experience. The cross-sectional studies in Part I focus on 185 English and Japanese essays by novice to advanced writers, while Part II comprises cases studies of writing in two or three languages and diverse genres. The overall findings reveal how experienced multilingual writers grow increasingly more able to draw on their expanded resources to create sophisticated arguments, connect with audiences, and project their writer identity across languages. Keywords  Multilingual writer development · Writing as a social act · English and Japanese writing · Writer agency and identity · Connecting with diverse audiences This book provides an innovative approach to studying the development of multilingual writing by looking at the writers’ control over text production in an integrated way. Our integrative approach combines insights based on a variety of kinds of data and theoretical perspectives. Research and theories often evolve through interaction with each other. Over the last 30 years, one impetus for our studies has been from such interactions while we have continued to explore the relationships between first (L1) and second language (L2) writing, and currently to involve the writing of two or more languages (“multilingual writing” in this book). Although we integrate a variety of perspectives, we can say that our central perspective is that of writing as © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Kobayashi, C. Rinnert, Developing Multilingual Writing, Multilingual Education 42, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12045-9_1

1

2

1 Introduction

a social act (Hyland, 2011; Prior, 2001). By that we mean that writers use their agency to construct meaning for a given purpose through interaction with the readers they envision and the conventions they associate with a particular social context.

1.1 Purpose of the Book Our main goal is to enrich understanding of multilingual writers’ development of writing ability. By multilingual writers we mean those who are able to construct meaning in texts they write in multiple (two or more) languages. As such, we are including writers with various levels of proficiency across languages, ranging from those whose language and writing resources are primarily L1- or L2-based to those who are more balanced bilinguals or multilinguals (Cenoz, 2013). Our aim is to shed light on these multilinguals’ writing development across languages. Our ultimate goal is to find out how multilingual writers become able to take conscious control over their own text construction so they can respond effectively to their expected audiences and realize their full potential as multiliterate members of society. This does not mean that we ignore writers’ linguistic development. As Norris and Manchón (2012) theorize L2 writing development, it requires both linguistic knowledge and control over textual output. In this book, however, we put more focus on the development of the writer’s control (agency) over textual output. In order to understand how multilingual writing ability develops, we focus on writer agency, audience, and identity from the perspective of writing as a social act. In recent research on L1 and L2 writing, including our own, three concerns have emerged as being central to the social action of constructing text: the agency of the writer, expectations of the audience, and writer identities co-constructed by writer and reader. The relationship between writer and audience is already well-established because research has shown that to construct text effectively, the writer needs to be aware of the audience. However, the role of writer identity has not been explored as much in relation to the other two, even though writer identity is conceptualized as involving choices of text features by the writer (agency) and interpretations by the reader (audience). Moreover, there has not been a comprehensive approach that integrates these three concerns in relation to development of multilingual writing ability. Our main goals are to gain greater understanding of how the concerns may be interrelated and how they contribute to developing multilingual writing. In the two following sections, we discuss the theoretical foundations for this book and explain each of the three concerns (agency, audience, identity). In the first of these sections, after briefly reviewing recent trends in the fields of second language acquisition (SLA) and L1/L2 writing, we focus on three prominent conceptual strands that inform much of the current research on multilingual writing, including the studies in this book: (1) multicompetence to translingualism, (2) transfer, and (3) developmental theories related to writing.

1.2  Theoretical Foundations

3

1.2 Theoretical Foundations Just as our perspectives have changed over the last 30 years, SLA theory has changed as well, representing a paradigm shift. First, current researchers no longer see L2 learners as deficient speakers/writers of the language they are acquiring; nor do they consider monolingual native speaking norms as necessarily the best target for learners. In contrast, they recognize that bilingual and multilingual speakers are emergent L2 users who are often advantaged by knowing more than one language (Bassetti & Cook, 2011; Canagarajah, 2011, 2013; Cook, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2016; Henry, 2017; Ortega, 2009; Ortega & Carson, 2010; Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2017). Second, according to a relatively recent theory of language as a complex adaptive system (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009), known as Complex Systems Theory (Cameron & Larsen-Freeman, 2007), language is not a static, autonomous system made up of grammar rules and lexical items. Rather, it is a fluid, dynamic process of meaning-making by speakers interacting with hearers in particular social contexts. Thus, language knowledge consists of a repertoire of linguistic patterns and relationships that speakers acquire and expand on through repeated interactions with other language users (Five Graces Group et al., 2009). At the same time, the fields of L1 and L2 writing have evolved in similar ways. Basically, they have moved away from a relatively static view of writing as a way of structuring ideas for a given purpose, as seen in contrastive rhetoric. Instead, they take a dynamic view of writing as social practice of meaning-making in particular localized settings and discourse communities (Hyland, 2011; Prior, 2001), for example as viewed by intercultural rhetoric and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) writing researchers (Baker, 2013; Connor, 2011). These profound changes in the fields of SLA and L2 writing underlie recent approaches to multilingual writing research.

1.2.1 Multicompetence to Translingualism As explained above, it is now widely recognized that bilingual and multilingual speakers are not failed monolinguals, but successful users of multiple languages. A strong influence affecting this change in perspective is multicompetence theory (Cook, 1991, 1992). Cook (2008) defines multicompetence as “knowledge of two languages in one mind” (p. 17) and argues that L1 and L2 represent merged or overlapping systems. He posits an “integration continuum” that ranges from complete separation of languages in the mind to “interconnection” (partial overlapping of languages) to complete integration of languages (2002, p. 11). He argues that multicompetent individuals all have varying degrees of interconnection of languages, with the amount of overlap in different parts of their L1 and L2 systems (e.g., phonology or grammar) changing through time (pp. 12–13), and the direction of change sometimes moving toward more overlap, sometimes toward more separation.

4

1 Introduction

Studies based on this conception of multicompetence have found that the L1 systems of multilingual and monolingual speakers differ at every level, including phonology, grammar, semantics, and pragmatics (Cook, 2003, 2008, 2016; Cook & Bassetti, 2011). A number of studies have taken a multicompetence notion of merged language knowledge and extended it to writing knowledge (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011; Lindgren & Stevenson, 2013; Liu & Carney, 2012; Manchón et  al., 2009; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012, 2013; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2009, 2016). Such studies compare writing by the same writers in their first language (L1) and a second language (L2), and sometimes also in a third language (L3). Their findings have supported the multicompetence view that writers’ repertoires of writing knowledge continually evolve and are reconfigured as a direct result of L1 and L2 literacy experiences. These studies have concluded that multilingual writers are empowered by expanding their repertoires of knowledge, including merged or hybrid knowledge, which they can draw on regardless of the language they are using. As pointed out by Norris and Manchón (2012), the conception of multicompetence is widely accepted and carries the implication that multilingual writing needs to be investigated comprehensively: It should be clear by now that multilingual multicompetence is the unmarked case in L2 writing, and that means we have to take multiple perspectives and gather multiple types of data to even start to make sense of what is going on for any given learner. (p. 241)

Nevertheless, the original conception of multicompetence has been criticized for its representation of languages as autonomous systems or structures with identifiable borders. In particular, a proposed reconceptualization of multicompetence (Hall et al., 2006) emphasized that linguistic knowledge is experientially based and continues to grow and change with no end point. They also argued that multicompetent language knowledge should be conceived of as a dynamic “communicative repertoire” (p. 232). This appears to reflect the Complex Systems Theory (CST) view, mentioned earlier, that language is not a static, autonomous system but a dynamic process of meaning-making in particular contexts (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009), which is sometimes referred to as “languaging” (e.g., Lin, 2018; Swain, 2009). A second, evolving theory that partially overlaps with multicompetence is known as translingualism. A widely cited definition of translingualism (or “translanguaging” when referring to individuals’ processes) is speakers using all of their “linguistic resources ‘to make meaning, transmit information, and perform identities’ such that individual ‘languages’ appear as part of a single integrated system” (Creese & Blackledge, 2010, p. 109). According to Canagarajah (2013), both reader and writer share mutual responsibilities in the construction of meaning, including creativity and invention. Because the theoretical framework of translingualism emphasizes “the process of communication, rather than the product,” it requires research on “the strategies people adopt to produce and interpret translingual text” (p. 10). Research on translingualism looks at what has been called code-switching, code-mixing, code-meshing, code-mashing, and creating hybrid or original forms, including ways

1.2  Theoretical Foundations

5

of combining various registers and dialects within languages as well as both linguistic and non-linguistic resources like visual images or symbols. Under the concept of translingualism, a growing number of studies (e.g., García & Kano, 2014; Kiramba, 2016; Turnbull, 2019; Wei & Hua, 2018) have explored how multilingual writers are able to “shuttle between languages, treating the diverse languages that form their repertories as an integrated system” (Canagarajah, 2011, p. 401). For example, Canagarajah (2013) showed how a multilingual graduate student writer incorporated Arabic words and script and French expressions in her English writing to share aspects of herself with her multicultural classmates. In an electronic context, Schreiber (2015) examined how a Serbian university student used diverse varieties of English and Serbian language, along with visual images, to project his distinctive on-line identity as a member of the global hip-hop community. The two theories of multicompetence and translingualism overlap to some extent and may even be moving toward a possible integration, as implied by some of the contributors to the recent edited volume aiming to reconcile translingualism and L2 writing (Silva & Wang, 2020). As we explained above, both multicompetence and translingualism focus on multilingual language users’ expanding repertoires of shared resources across languages. However, the major difference between the two theories has been that multicompetence has seen languages as overlapping mental systems, whereas translingualism tends to see languages as experience- or process-­ based practice. Cook’s (2016) more recent definition of “multicompetence” has been expanded beyond mental systems to include the social as well as well as the cognitive: “the overall system of a mind or a community that uses more than one language” (p.  2). However, language is still conceptualized as part of a system, rather than as practice or process. In this book, we continue to adopt the multicompetence concept of a merged repertoire of writing knowledge that multilingual writers can draw on regardless of the language of the written text they are creating. At the same time, we focus on the dynamic translingual processes and strategies the writer uses to construct meaning, particularly on how writers select and modify rhetorical text features to fit their perceived reader expectations. Throughout the book, we are using the term “multilingual” in an expanded way. That is, we intend it to cover the kind of fluid use of multiple resources that is implied by the newer terms “translingual” and “plurilingual” (a term most commonly used in Europe to refer to speakers’ and writers’ use of multiple languages). Our approach also overlaps with other related ones, such as a “biliteracy genre approach” (Gentil, 2005, 2011), “focus on multilingualism” (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011; Cenoz, 2013), and projecting “writer identity” and “voice” in mono/bi/multilingual writing (Ivanič, 1998; Burgess & Ivanič, 2010). But we can say that most of our work is compatible with the evolving intercultural rhetoric, ELF, and translingual views, which all take the perspective of writing as a social act. We should note that we are limiting our discussion of translingual practices to the construction of individual texts, rather than looking at the larger social and political issues of translanguaging in the sense of policies about using mixed languages in particular contexts, although we do advocate strategic use of translanguaging in L2 writing classrooms. At the same time, we consider our research to be embedded in the field of L2 writing (Atkinson et al.,

6

1 Introduction

2015) in both English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as a second language (ESL) contexts and aim to provide research and pedagogical contributions to the L2 writing field.

1.2.2 Transfer Along with the other concepts discussed above, the notion of transfer has also evolved. Traditional views of language transfer in L2 writing focused mainly on negative effects (or “interference”) of L1 on L2. The emphasis was on identifying and fixing problems that resulted from a writer’s applying L1 features to their L2 writing, such as semantic and syntactic errors. This represented a static view of transfer as simply reusing fixed L1 linguistic and text features in L2. It also portrayed the L2 writer as automatically transferring undesirable or inappropriate features from L1 to L2 (Matsuda, 1997). More dynamic views of language transfer  – or more broadly cross-linguistic influence (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2007) – have largely replaced the traditional views. That is, the writer is now seen as an agent who makes decisions about what to transfer across languages, influenced by individual, social, and contextual factors. At the same time, language transfer has been found to occur bi-directionally and multi-­ directionally, not just in the direction of L1 to L2 (Babali & Ramazani, 2017; Berman, 1994; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012, 2013; Manchón & Roca de Larios, 2007; Pavlenko & Jarvis, 2002; Uysal, 2008). For example, looking at secondary school students’ writing in three languages, Cenoz and Gorter (2011) found transfer of lexical and grammatical features in all directions among Spanish, Basque, and English. However, multicompetence theory implies the need for a reconceptualization of language transfer. As discussed above, the theory says that multilinguals’ repertoire of knowledge is flexible and constantly evolving. Also, because it includes merged or hybrid knowledge that writers can draw on regardless of the language they are using, such knowledge is no longer associated with a particular language. As explained by Cook (2002), this calls into question the whole notion of language transfer: language acquisition or use is not transferring something from one part of the mind to another, but two systems accommodating to each other. The terms ‘transfer’ and ‘cross-­ linguistic influence’ seem to imply separate languages and movement rather than overlapping systems. (p. 18)

Since there is no movement from one part of the mind to another, Cook suggests that “transfer” is a questionable term to apply. Influenced by the recent dynamic conceptions of languages as fluid processes rather than autonomous systems, as discussed above, Hall et  al. (2006) went even further by rejecting the notion of “transfer” between language systems, preferring terms like “reorganization,” “expansion,” and “transformation” (p. 232).

1.2  Theoretical Foundations

7

Instead of looking at language transfer, some L2 writing researchers (e.g., James, 2007) have turned to a different conception of transfer that originated in educational studies, namely “transfer of learning” (e.g., Lobato, 2003). This kind of transfer involves the application of learned knowledge to new and unfamiliar contexts. Using this notion, studies (e.g., James, 2009; Leki & Carson, 1994) have investigated the extent to which students are able to transfer writing knowledge they learned in one context (such as an ESL class) to new ones (such as content classes). More recently, DePalma and Ringer (2011) proposed a dynamic reconceptualization of transfer of learning called “adaptive transfer of learning.” This perspective defines transfer as the writer’s actively reusing and reshaping learned knowledge in new contexts (DePalma & Ringer, 2011, 2013; Alexander et al., 2016), which can include new genres or different languages (Nowacek, 2011; Wilson & Soblo, 2019). Applying this conception of adaptive transfer, which we also refer to as “dynamic transfer,” our study of North Americans writing in L1 English and L2 Japanese (Rinnert et al., 2015) suggested how those experienced L1 writers were able to take an active role in choosing to reuse or reshape their acquired knowledge when writing argumentation essays in L2 Japanese. In the studies in this book, we continue to draw on the notion of adaptive/dynamic transfer of learning both within and across languages. However, we often use the terms “reuse” and “reshaping” instead of “transfer.” In this way, we try to avoid confusion with more static views of language transfer. At the same time, we hope these terms will make it obvious that our analysis is compatible with current approaches that emphasize the fluid and dynamic nature of language and the dynamic construction of meaning by emergent multilinguals (or plurilinguals) who draw on all their resources (e.g., Kiramba, 2016; Lin, 2018). We use the term “reshaping” to include “remixing prior and current knowledge” as well as “the potential for genre innovation” by writers in new contexts (Wilson & Soblo, 2019, p. 3).

1.2.3 Theories of Writing Development Theories of writing development differ in terms of how they define development and what aspects of writing they study. One of the most widely accepted views of writer development (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987) posits that writers move from a novice stage of knowledge-telling (presenting previously learned information and ideas without much reflection) to a more advanced stage of knowledge-­transforming (reflecting on the task, setting goals, analyzing problems, and reworking ideas to change their thoughts and text). However, to date we still do not know exactly how writers make this developmental leap. A more recent conception (Kellogg, 2008) builds on this theory and goes a step further by incorporating the reader. In addition to the first two stages, this theory posits a third stage of knowledge-crafting “for the reader’s benefit” (p. 3). To move beyond transforming knowledge to crafting knowledge, writers have to learn to construct knowledge skillfully in sophisticated ways for their audience. To do this, expert writers need to connect writer, text, and reader

8

1 Introduction

while they are writing, by holding three separate views of the writing (writer-related, text-related, and reader-related) in their mind simultaneously. According to this theory, the ability to construct knowledge in such an advanced way takes expert writers more than 20 years to develop; that is, writers continue to get more proficient as they acquire more experience with no end point. However, just as with the earlier theory, it has yet to be determined how writers move from one stage to the next. Moreover, according to Complex Systems Theory (CST) applied to writing, individual writers’ development is complex, varied, and non-linear. That is, individual writers progress in different ways, with lots of variation and even backtracking, as explained by Polio and Park (2016): [T]he acquisition of writing can be considered a complex system where learners take different paths, show much intralearner variability, do not progress linearly, and progress in different ways on different aspects of writing. (p. 301)

This means that developmental stages overlap, and we need to look at individual writers’ learning trajectories in order to understand how learning actually proceeds. When studying writing development, researchers need to specify what kind of change they are looking at when they try to measure development and what factors may influence such change (Manchón, 2012). Two main groups of studies on writing development can be identified: those that focus on changes in linguistic features in written texts and those that focus on how writers gain greater “control over [their] textual output” (Norris & Manchón, 2012, p. 223). Those studies in the first group measure development in terms of improved linguistic complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) in written texts. Studies have found that the relationship among these measures is complicated, and their connection to writing quality is not simple or direct (e.g., Bulté & Housen, 2014; Crossley & McNamara, 2014; Polio & Shea, 2014). Moreover, it remains to be determined what linguistic complexity in writing development actually entails, for example, a greater number of subordinate clauses (as has been found in spoken language) as opposed to more nominalization with embedded modification (as seen in published research papers) (Biber et al., 2011). Many studies have taken a Complex Systems Theory approach to compare differences in a wide variety of lexical and grammatical features (e.g., Connor-Linton & Polio, 2014; Vespoor et al., 2012; Yoon & Polio, 2016) in the written texts of writers at different proficiency levels. Looking at changes in many different linguistic variables, ranging from sentence length and measures of sophistication of vocabulary to more specific features like lexical “chunks,” verb forms, and relative clauses, they have found great variability within and across groups and individuals, indicating that development is non-linear, varied, and changing. In contrast, the writing development studies in the second group (those that look at control over text output) examine changes/development largely in two aspects of text construction: Rhetorical features and composing processes. These studies take a close look at relationships between the writers’ development of writing and a variety of influential factors which are often interrelated, including language proficiency, writing instruction and experience, attitudes, perceptions, and motivation (e.g., Cumming, 1989; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Hirose, 2003; Rinnert & Kobayashi,

1.2  Theoretical Foundations

9

2009; Roca de Larios et al., 2002; Sasaki, 2002, 2011). Regarding rhetorical features, a number of studies have examined changes in the writers’ use of overall discourse types, introductions, conclusions, and metadiscourse markers. For example, from a sociocognitive perspective (a view of writing in specific social contexts), Kobayashi and Rinnert (2008) looked at the effects of pre-university training in L1 and/or L2 essay writing for university entrance exams while controlling the level of English proficiency among the students. The findings showed the interaction between L1 and L2 training tended to create greater effects than either of the separate kinds of training alone, because the students with combined training increased their cognitive awareness of choosing an argumentation discourse type over others (e.g., exposition or mixed type) in their opinion writing. Taking a multicompetence approach as explained earlier, Liu and Carney (2012) and Kobayashi and Rinnert (2012) found similar effects of language proficiency and writing instruction/experience on the choices of discourse types. The latter study in particular looked at both discourse types and introduction/conclusion components used in L1 and L2 essays written by the diverse groups of writers from novice to highly experienced. While developmental and cross-language differences were observed among the groups, it was found that the most advanced writers adopted a variety of approaches to framing L1 and L2 essays with more focused introductions and extended conclusions in both languages (see Rinnert, 2019 for a refined analysis of introduction and conclusion components in the English essays). The overall findings suggest that with greater writing knowledge and experience, writers can have increased ability to exert control over the shape of the essays they construct, regardless of the language. Another kind of rhetorical feature studied in connection with developmental changes relates to genres associated with particular discourse communities (Hyland, 2015; Johns, 2008; Swales, 1990; Tardy et al., 2018). Among such research, a number of corpus-based studies link specific text features, like evidentials, citations, and transitions, to their communicative purposes in particular genres (e.g., Hyland, 2005, 2008, 2011). Also adapting Hyland’s framework, or influenced by his interpersonal model of metadiscourse (interactive versus interactional, see this classification in Chap. 3), a great amount of research has shown effects of variables such as language, context, discipline, and genre on writers’ use of metadiscourse resources, including boosters and hedges. For example, in their cross-contextual and cross-­ disciplinary study, Li and Wharton (2012) found that home-based undergraduate Chinese writers tended to use hedges and boosters in equal proportions in their L2 English essays, while their England-based counterparts used more hedges, suggesting that there is some difference in what is valued in instruction between the two contexts. A second aspect of the writers’ control over text output is the composing process, including activities such as planning, formulating, revising, and word-searching. From a cognitive-based approach that views writing as problem-solving, a large number of studies measure changes in these activities the writer engages in during the process of making meaning, often using think-aloud protocols (e.g., Flower, 1994; Manchón et  al., 2009; Sasaki, 2007). Looking at the composing process,

10

1 Introduction

which is considered to be recursive in nature, many studies have found effects of writing proficiency on L2 writers’ planning behaviors. For example, lower proficiency writers do less planning and rely more heavily on L1 when writing in L2, as compared to more skilled writers with comparable backgrounds. Similarly, looking at problem-solving during composing, Roca de Larios et al. (2006) found that L2 writers with higher writing ability tended to engage more frequently in “upgrading” (refining clarity, coherence, and expression), whereas those with lower proficiency spent much more time on “compensatory” concerns (correcting perceived grammar and word choice errors). Going beyond the earlier cognitive-based studies, one longitudinal study on Japanese undergraduate writers with differing lengths of study-abroad experience (Sasaki et al., 2018) took a closer look at their writing strategy use, including global planning, local planning, and L1-to-L2 translation, from a self-regulatory perspective. Drawing on Oxford’s model of strategic self-regulation, they view the use of learning strategies for writing to be thoughts and actions that are both complex and dynamic, which involve “cognitive, affective, and social factors,” including motivation (p. 293). Among these variables, the study found that motivation is crucial for the development of writing, and study-abroad experience in particular provides increased motivation to write well. Thus, they argue that the frequent use of a global planning strategy is not related to a high level of language proficiency, but rather to positive effects of combined global planning instruction and study-abroad experience. The study sheds light on the importance of social, individual, and affective factors, especially motivation, for the development of L2 writing. In line with the above conceptions, in this book we follow a multi-faceted approach to researching multilingual writing development. That is, we attempt to focus on the dynamic interplay of multiple factors in the learning trajectories of individual writers. To do this, we look at both similarities and differences among groups and individuals. We investigate changes in writer processes and strategies across languages. Although we recognize the vital importance of acquisition of L2 grammatical and lexical features, our main concern involves changes in essay-level or paragraph-level rhetorical features that relate closely to readers in multiple languages. In terms of developmental influences, we consider a wide variety of factors, as explained in each chapter. In the following section, we introduce the three main concerns of this book: agency, audience, and identity. We briefly explain each of these concepts, why we chose them, and how they relate to our studies of developing multilingual writing, from the perspective of writing as a social act.

1.3 Focus on Agency, Audience, Identity As stated above, we are focusing on three aspects of writing that have been found by us and others as being central to the writing process: writer agency, audience expectations, and writer identity. Prevailing conceptions of all three of these

1.3  Focus on Agency, Audience, Identity

11

constructs are dynamic and fluid. That is, writer agency, awareness of audience expectations, and writer identity are not fixed qualities, but active processes that continually change and evolve in relation to particular social contexts. To explore multilingual writing development, we consider these three concepts particularly useful in analyzing and interpreting data collected from a variety of multilingual writers, as explained below. (1) Agency As we have already seen, a key concept in current research on writer development is the agency of the writer. That is, writers’ agency develops as they gain greater control over their text construction. The common conception of writer agency is a dynamic view of the writer as an active agent (Matsuda, 1997) who asserts control over his or her principal writing activities as part of the social act of constructing meaning for particular readers. We have found that such activities include the following (Rinnert et al., 2015): Assessing audience Defining individual goals Devising ways of attaining goals (e.g., kinds of support) Selecting appropriate text features and style from the writer’s repertoire of writing knowledge Transforming/reshaping selected text features. This conception of agency reflects the way the image of the writer has evolved from a relatively automatized transcriber of linguistic forms to an active transformer or shaper of knowledge to attain their own goals or purpose. Such a dynamic view of agency also recognizes that writers may choose to accommodate or resist particular audience expectations  – that is, whether or not to try to assimilate as L2 writers (Connor, 2011) and whether to follow or challenge dominant rhetorical patterns, as pointed out by critical contrastive rhetoric (Kubota, 2010; Kubota & Lehner, 2004). Writer agency is widely seen as a form of writer empowerment (Hyland, 2011). That is, if writers take conscious control over their decision-making, they become empowered to negotiate successfully with particular audiences in specific contexts. This conception of writer agency as empowerment draws on three partially overlapping approaches: cognitive, sociocognitive, and dialogic. Cognitive approaches see writer agency/empowerment as mastering expert-writer practices, such as global planning and knowledge transforming (e.g., Manchón & Roca de Larios, 2007; Manchón et  al., 2009). Sociocognitive approaches view agency/empowerment as developing the ability to consciously manipulate linguistic and rhetorical choices to fit particular social contexts (e.g., Haneda, 2007; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2009; Uysal, 2008). Dialogic approaches conceive of writer agency/empowerment as exercising creativity and judgment in responding to typical social situations (e.g., Hyland, 2008; Li & Wharton, 2012; Thompson, 2001). All three approaches recognize that writer agency could be affected by individual internal factors (e.g., intrinsic motivation) and contextual factors.

12

1 Introduction

Our own approach in this book incorporates elements of all three of these perspectives, as we explain in individual chapters. Our main focus is on how multilingual writers exert their agency to construct texts by transforming or reshaping their knowledge for various audiences in different contexts. At the same time, we recognize that writer agency is not necessarily conscious, because writers do not always make deliberate choices. That is, they may select features spontaneously, as part of the process (flow) of constructing meaning, as in spoken interaction (Lin, 2018). Nevertheless, we believe that becoming more conscious of their own agency can empower multilingual writers to exert more control over their writing across languages. In our studies, we would like to see how multilingual writers develop more control as they gain more writing experience. (2) Audience As just mentioned above, one of the primary activities for the writer as agent to perform is assessing the audience. Therefore, in the studies in this book, we have chosen to look at multilingual writers’ development of audience awareness. By audience, we mean intended readers both within and across languages, such as peers and teachers, as well as members of particular disciplinary communities. There has been a long tradition devoted to differences in language-audience expectations. Most notably, researchers in the fields of contrastive rhetoric identified culturally preferred rhetorical features (e.g., Connor & Kaplan, 1987; Hinkel, 1994, 2002; Kaplan, 1966; Kobayashi, 1984; Leki, 1991; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1996; Kubota, 1998a, b; Yang & Cahill, 2008). Examples of culturally influenced audience preferences include explicit vs. implicit presentation of information; inductive vs. deductive discourse organization; and writer- vs. reader-based responsibility for interpreting the meaning of the text (e.g., Hinds, 1987; Liu & Carney, 2012; Qi & Liu, 2007). Looking at audience awareness on the part of the writer, many studies have observed that writers’ perceptions of reader expectations affect the way they construct text (e.g., Canagarajah, 2013; Connor, 2011; Sasaki et al., 2020). In addition to different language audiences, other kinds of audiences range from local audiences, such as peers engaging in collaborative writing or small communities of readers with shared interests, to more global audiences made up of members of established academic disciplines or digital readers of electronic postings on social media. One well-known case, for example, is that of a Sri Lankan bilingual professional who formulated three articles on the same topic in different styles for each of his perceived audiences, including local Tamil and English readers and an international English audience (Canagarajah, 2011). Another is Sasaki’s (2011) study of the effects of study abroad on Japanese L2 English writers, whose writing appeared to have been influenced by an audience they imagined based on their overseas experiences, that is, an “imaginary” community that is not physically present (Norton & McKinney, 2011). Our conception of audience emphasizes the dialogic nature of writing as negotiation between the writer and reader (Baker, 2013; Connor, 2011; Hyland, 2008; Thompson, 2001). We see the writer (as agent) as fulfilling a complex role that

1.3  Focus on Agency, Audience, Identity

13

balances the writer’s own intentions with the expectations of the audience and the changing norms of the discourse community (Hyland, 2015). We look specifically at the effects of such factors as overseas experience, individual writers’ perceptions and beliefs, and disciplinary writing experience on developing audience awareness, which is one of the key aspects of multilingual writers’ development. (3) Identity We chose identity as the third major focus of the book because of its apparent close relation to agency and audience. In fact, identity-related concerns appear to underlie multilingual writers’ agency and audience awareness, as we found in our longitudinal study of Natsu’s writing development in English, Japanese, and Chinese (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2013). While we explored mainly socio-cultural identity in that study, we are looking specifically at writer identity (or discoursal self) in this study, where the writers project an image of themselves in the text they create. There are other kinds of identity theorized, for example, L2 identity or L2 self as related to learners’ motivation (e.g., Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009; Henry, 2017; Ushioda, 2017), which we also apply to explain individual multilingual writers’ motivation (e.g., Natsu’s multilingual self). However, we basically follow the concept of writer identity explained below to explore its role in the participants’ text construction. Our conception of writer identity in this study involves both social and individual aspects. L1 and L2 writing researchers have found that when engaging in academic writing at any level – from a university entrance essay exam to a research article in a highly competitive journal – writers need to find a balance between social and individual identities. That is, writers have to both participate appropriately in social discourse and project an individual voice (Hyland, 2015). It is widely accepted that identity as a theoretical concept is multiple, changing, and “a site of struggle” (Norton & McKinney, 2011, p. 74). That is, identity is not a fixed set of inherent characteristics belonging to an individual; instead, it comprises multiple selves that are negotiated in social contexts (e.g., Joseph, 2004; Nogami, 2020; Norton & McKinney, 2011). Similarly, writer identity is seen as negotiated or co-constructed, as explained by Matsuda (2015): […] the writer’s identity does not singularly reside in the writer, the text, or the reader; rather, identity is part of the interpersonal meaning that is negotiated through the interaction among the writer and the reader mediated by the text. (p. 145)

This notion that writer identity is negotiated or co-constructed seems difficult to understand, probably because the negotiation and co-construction are not going on at the same time, but separately at two different times. That is, the writer’s negotiation with potential readers takes place mainly in the writer’s head before and during the writing. In contrast, each reader’s interpretation, negotiation, and co-construction of the writer’s identity occurs later, while the reader is reading and reflecting on the completed text, and usually the writer has no chance to negotiate in real time with an actual reader. Thus, the co-construction of writer identity by writer and reader is based on metaphorical, long-distance, and time-delayed interaction.

14

1 Introduction

One of the most influential conceptualizations of writers’ multiple identities or “selves” was formulated by Ivanič (1998), who distinguished three writer selves: (1) autobiographical self, based on the personal history and experiences of the writer; (2) discoursal self, the image or “voice” the writer projects; and (3) authorial self, or authoritativeness, which is an aspect of the discoursal self that concerns how explicitly writers assert their own responsibility for the content, for example, through use of first-person pronouns. In their study of Mexican L2 English writer identities in the UK, Burgess and Ivanič (2010) expanded the scope of these three selves and added two more aspects of writer identity: (4) socially available possibilities for selfhood, i.e., resources found in discourses that transcend individual writers; and (5) perceived writer on the part of the reader each time the writing is read. Thus, they added a social dimension and incorporated the reader’s role. Although all five of these writer selves are relevant to our study, we will draw most heavily on discoursal self, which underlies Voice in our study of voice construction (Chap. 5). In this book, we follow other researchers in using writer “voice” as a metaphor to capture the sense of writer identity or image of the writer as perceived by readers of a particular text (Matsuda & Jeffery, 2012). In essence, we use writer identity and writer voice in much the same way and recognize that both represent multiple aspects. These include the roles taken on by the writer (such as observer, interpreter, or academic arguer); the particular rhetorical choices that help writers demonstrate they are knowledgeable members of the academic community; and the participation by readers (Sancho Guinda & Hyland, 2012). In this book, we follow a widely cited definition of voice as being the combined effect of linguistic and non-linguistic features that “language users choose” (either intentionally or unintentionally) from their “ever-changing repertoires; it is the overall impression” (Matsuda, 2001, p. 40). In essence, we see writer identity as an integral part of writing, whether it is intended or not. That is, even novice writers project an impression of themselves to their readers. As a result, it is apparent that gaining control over the voices they project is an essential goal for multilingual writers. In Chaps. 4 and 5, we explore how multilingual writers develop their ability to project more sophisticated writer identity and voice and offer a tentative model of voice construction.

1.4 Specific Goals Our aim in this book, as we said at the outset, is to shed new light on how writers develop the ability to write in multiple languages. In particular, we hope to understand how multilingual writers learn to take control over their text construction to meet the needs of various audiences and project their identity across languages. To do this, we attempt to clarify how writer agency, audience awareness, and identity construction contribute in interrelated ways to multilingual writing development. On a more concrete level, we aim to provide insights into the following questions:

1.5 Methodology

15

1. Whether multilingual writers’ agency, audience awareness, and identity are interrelated, and if so, in what ways; 2. How agency, audience awareness, and identity develop among novice to advanced multilingual writers; 3. How multilingual writers develop their text-construction processes through such strategies as dynamic (adaptive) transfer and translanguaging; and 4. How writers construct their “voice” (identity in the text) by selecting particular content and text features that are later interpreted by readers. The first two questions directly address three concerns: Writer agency (control over text construction), audience awareness (ability to meet expectations of prospective readers), and writer identity (projection of discoursal self in the text). As we explained above, these three concerns constitute the focus of this book, and our goal is to shed light on how they may be interrelated and how abilities related to each of them develop as writers gain more experience across languages. The third question elaborates on the second question by focusing on the strategies of dynamic (adaptive) transfer and the use of multiple languages in the development of multilingual writers’ text construction processes. The fourth question builds on the other three to explore writer identity, a new concern for us, in more depth. While exploring these four questions throughout the book, we elucidate some of the advantages and challenges multilingual writers experience as they acquire greater expertise. In this way, we hope to demonstrate the relevance of developing greater agency, audience awareness, and control over writer identity on a practical level. In the last two sections of this chapter, we present an introduction to the methodology we employed for the studies in Parts I and II and an overview of the contents of the entire book.

1.5 Methodology As a principal method for research, we combined both cross-sectional and case-­ study approaches. For Part I, to examine the participants’ developmental paths across languages, we conducted multiple cross-sectional studies, which compare “at one point in time different individuals and groups under distinct conditions” (Norris & Manchón, 2012, p. 228), including proficiency levels, writing experience, and context. For Part II, we adopted a case-study approach by focusing on 11 participants to look in depth at the relations among writer agency, audience awareness, and writer identity in individuals’ text construction across multiple languages. One advantage of case studies is to offer participants’ emic views, perceptions, and attitudes, which would not be easily obtained in cross-sectional studies (Harklau, 2008). As part of the case studies, we also included a longitudinal study, which is considered particularly important when research seeks to find changes in an individual writer’s development of writing (Ortega & Byrnes, 2008; Sasaki, 2011; Spack, 1997; Tardy, 2009). While for Part I, we reanalyzed all the L1 and L2 essays

16

1 Introduction

we (Kobayashi and Rinnert) had collected from a series of cross-sectional studies (2008, 2009, 2012, 2015), for Part II, we used previously collected data (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2013) for the longitudinal study (Chap. 6) and collected new data from 10 participants for the other studies. Throughout the book, we analyzed both group and individual data by establishing new sets of analysis to achieve a particular purpose in each chapter. Although we need to be cautious in interpreting the findings we obtain from such descriptive studies (Harklau, 2008), a combination of diverse methods can yield more reliable results for us to base our interpretations on (Manchón, 2016). Next, we describe the participant profiles and data sources. Participants Table 1.1 shows profiles of the 103 participants in the eight groups in Part I, classified by context and background, including academic status, overseas experience, and L2 proficiency level. The first five groups were Japanese writers in an EFL (English as a foreign language) context, including Novice (28), Returnee (10), Experienced 1 (9), Experienced 2 (10), and Experienced 3 (6); the sixth group were North American writers in a JFL (Japanese as a foreign language) context (19); and the remaining two groups were L1 Japanese writers in an L1 context (21).

Table 1.1  Participant profiles by group for Part I Group Number Academic status Japanese in EFL context Novice (Nov)b 28 First year undergraduate Returnee (Ret) 10 First year undergraduate Experienced 1 9 Third year (Exp1) undergraduate Experienced 2 10 Fourth year (Exp2) undergraduate Experienced 3 6 Graduate/professional (Exp3) N. American in JFL context North American 19 Third and fourth year (NA) undergraduate Japanese in L1 context L1 experienced 1 15 Third year (L1J-1) undergraduate L1 experienced 2 6 Graduate (L1J-2)

Overseas experience

No Yes No

L2 Proficiency level TOEFL equivalent mean scoresa 461 (435 ~ 491) 518 (448 ~ 579) 507 (445 ~ 554)

Yes

537 (490 ~ 562)

Yes

Advanced

Mixed

Intermediate to high Intermediatec

No

–

No

–

Table 1.1 is replicated in Appendix 1 to provide easy access for readers of other chapters a TOEFL equivalent scores given from CASEC (Computerized Assessment System for English communication): Mean scores significantly different between Novice and Returnees at p  > <