Abstract
Based on Ivanic’s views, I assume that academic exchanges can be enriched through equal participation of every writer ‘novice’ or ‘expert’. However, much of EFL novice writers’ participation has been limited, due to widespread use of generic styles supported by ideologies and cultural values of native-speakerism and promoted by pragmatic approaches that claim to help students learn how to write in an ‘acceptable’ way. In practice, more boundaries are created for novice writers. On the one hand, discourses of native-speakerism construe an image of the Other as ‘deficient’ and ‘inferior’ (Holliday 2005). On the other hand, the imposed limits and the power imbalance between novice EFL writers and their ‘native-speaker’ teachers constrain their choices in writing. As a result, their texts are mainly a representation of what is expected of them rather than their real self. The ideological roots of these orientations have been challenged (see Pennycook 1998; Canagarajah 2002; Holliday 2011, 2013); however given the social, cultural and political variety in the field of EFL it is necessary to investigate the effects of these practices comprehensively. It is equally important to understand learners’ experiences from themselves and thus problema-tise the ‘neo-racist’, denigrating ideologies of native-speakerism.
All our writing is influenced by our life histories. Each word we write represents an encounter, possibly a struggle, between our multiple past experience and the demands of a new context. Writing is not some neutral activity which we just learn like a physical skill, but it implicates every fibre of the writer’s multifaceted being.
(Ivanic 1998: 181)
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliography
Alagözlü, N., & Saraç Süzer S. 2010. Language and cognition: Is critical thinking a myth in Turkish educational system? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 782–786.
Atkinson, D. 1997. A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 71–94.
Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. 1995. Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and L2 university writing/ language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 539–568.
Barnawi, O. 2011. Finding a place for critical thinking and self-voice in college English as a foreign language writing classrooms. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 190.
Benesch, S. 1993. ESL, ideology and the politics of pragmatism. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 705–717.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. 1993. Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written Communication, 10(4), 475–509.
Canagarajah, A. 2002. A geopolitics of academic writing (1st ed.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Canagarajah, A. 2013. Translingual practice. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Chase, G. 1988. Accommodation, resistance and the politics of student writing. College Composition and Communication, 39(1), 13–22.
Cottrell, S. 2005. Critical thinking skills. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
The Dearing Report UK. 2007. Retrieved from The Tertiary Education, Research Database. Education for Work and Beyond website: http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv27137.
Duncan, M. 2007. Whatever happened to the paragraph? College English, 59(5), 470–495.
Ennis, R. H. 1996. Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Evetts, J. 2009. The management of professionalism a contemporary complex. In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall, & A. Cribb (eds), Changing teacher professionalism, international trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 19–30). New York: Routledge.
Fisher, A. 2001. Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gewirtz, S., Mahony, P., Hextall, I., & Cribb, A. 2009. Policy, professionalism and practice understanding and enhancing teacher’s work [Introduction]. In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextal, & A. Cribb (eds), Changing teacher professionalism, international trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 24–37). New York: Routledge.
Graddol, D. 1997. The future of English? London: British Council.
Hinds, J. 1986. Reader versus writer responsibility. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (eds), Writing across languages: Analysis of L? text (pp. 141–152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Holliday, A. 2005. The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holliday, A. 2011. Intercultural communication and ideology. London: Sage.
Holliday, A. 2013. ‘Native Speaker’, teachers and cultural belief. In S. Houghton & D. Rivers (eds), Native-speakerism in Japan (pp. 17–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Horowitz, D. 1986. What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 445–462. It Takes More than a Major: An Online Survey Conducted on Behalf of: The Association of American Colleges and Universities (2013) (1st ed.). Washington. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2013_EmployerSurvey.pdf
Ivanic, R. 1998. Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Johnston, B., Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Ford, P. 2011. Developing student criticality in higher education. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Kamberlis, Q., & Scott, K. D. 1992. Other peoples’ voices: The co-articulation of texts and subjectivities. Journal of Linguistics and Education, 4, 359–403.
Kaplan, R. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1–20.
Kapoor, D. 2011. Introduction. In D. Kapoor (ed.), Critical Perspectives on Neoliberal Globalization, Development and Education in Africa and Asia (pp ix–xvii). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Kibler, A. 2011. ‘I write it in a way that people can read it’: How teachers and adolescent L2 writers describe content area writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 211–226.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2006. Which model of English: Native-speaker, Nativized or Lingua Franca? In R. Rubdy & M. Saraceni (eds), English in the world: Global rule, global roles (pp. 71–84). London: Continuum.
Knight, P. T., & Yorke, M. 2002. Employability through the curriculum. Tertiary Education and Management, 8(4), 261–276.
Kubota, R. 1999. Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 9–35.
Kuhn, D. 1999. A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–25+46.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 1999. Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 453–484.
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. 2008. A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York: Routledge.
Lillis, T. 2008. Ethnography as method, methodology, and ‘Deep Theorizing’: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25(3), 353–388.
Lillis, T., & McKinney, C. 2013. The sociolinguistics of writing in a global context: Objects, lenses, consequences. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17(4), 415–439.
Moon, J. A. 2008. Critical thinking: An exploration of theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. 1998. English and the discourses of colonialism. London and New York: Routledge.
Qi, Xiukun & Liu, Lida 2007. Differences between reader/writer responsible languages reflected in EFL learners’ writing. Intercultural Communication Studies, XVI(3), 148–159.
Said, E. 2004, February 12. Living in Arabic. Al Ahram Weekly, Culture. Sheikh bin Mubarak, N. 2010, September 18. Opening speech for 23rd HCT annual conference [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.wam.org.ae/servlet/Satellite?c=WamLocEnews&cid=1282812694835&p=1135099400124&pagename=WAM%2FWamLocEnews%2FW-T-LEN-FullNews.
Shafer, G. 2000. Composition for the twenty-first century. English Journal, 90(1), 29–33.
Shi, L. 2006. The successors to Confucianism or a new generation? A questionnaire study on Chinese students’ culture of learning English. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 122–147.
Stapleton, P. 2002. Critical thinking in Japanese L2 writing: Rethinking tired constructs. ELT, 56(3), 250–256.
US Goals 2000: Educate America Act. (2000). Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/index.html.
Wiley, M. 2000. The popularity of formulaic writing (And why we need to resist). The English Journal, 90(1), 61–67.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2015 Nasima Yamchi
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yamchi, N. (2015). ‘I am not what you think I am’: EFL Undergraduates’ Experience of Academic Writing, Facing Discourses of Formulaic Writing. In: Swan, A., Aboshiha, P., Holliday, A. (eds) (En)Countering Native-speakerism. Palgrave Advances in Language and Linguistics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137463500_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137463500_12
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-55208-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-46350-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Education CollectionEducation (R0)