“Invention and Identification Through Intertextual Appropriation of Academic Discourse”

by George Shamshayooadeh | Xchanges 9.1

Pedagogical Implications

As Porter and others have suggested, in the context of academic writing it might be reasonable to think of writing in the intertextual context of discourse communities. The term “discourse communities” was originally conceived by the sociolinguist Martin Nystrand and further developed by John Swales. Porter describes a discourse community as “a group of individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is regulated” (38-39). Thus, by becoming immersed in a discourse community and operating within its boundaries, the members become well-versed in its shared assumptions, arguments, ideas, recent developments, appropriate language and style, as well as other features that may simultaneously facilitate and constrain communication and debate.

In the above context, Porter discusses the pedagogy that such a conception of intertextuality entails by countering and replacing the traditional notion of the text produced by an individual, secluded writer with the idea of joining a discourse community by learning its topics, conventions, and strategies for writing and becoming “socialized members” of the discourse community. He underlines the need to utilize appropriate “heuristics,” “critical reading,” “formal conventions,” “community discourse values,” and “audience analysis” (42).

I would argue that writing instruction should be student-centered with the instructor acting more as a facilitator than a subject-matter expert. Hence, the instructor sets up the task-based, collaborative/dialogic activities and students relish the autonomy of writing agents in both in-class and online forums such as discussion board threads, postings, and blogs. One way this could be achieved is to divide the class into research groups of three or four, and have student-members agree on a general debatable/research topic that they would then approach from different angles due to its kaleidoscopic complexity. For instance, a controversial topic such as embryonic stem cell research could be approached from bioethical, medical, and financial angles while simultaneously providing students with a shared platform for interaction.

Chris Anson contends that writing instruction is often “founded on the assumption that students learn well by reading and writing with each other, responding to each others’ drafts, negotiating revisions, discussing ideas, sharing perspectives, and finding some level of trust as collaborators in their mutual development” (270). In her 1989 keynote address at the CCCC, Andrea Lunsford enumerated characteristics of rhetoric and composition, one of which was that “We are dialogic, multivoiced, heteroglossic. Our classroom practices enact what others only talk about; they are sites for dialogues and polyphonic choruses” (76).

This approach is also compatible with what Nancy Kline calls “writing as exploration” in which she urges her students to “write to find out what [they are] thinking” (16). In this pedagogical context, other texts are used to tease out students’ own voices. Hence, it would make pedagogical sense to select texts that manifest a good deal of intertextuality by sharing common sources, texts, ideas, and queries and/or by positioning themselves against one another. Bazerman underlines the need for “intertextual analysis” which “examines the relation of a statement to that sea of words, how it uses those words, how it positions itself in respect to those other words” (84).