“Invention and Identification Through Intertextual Appropriation of Academic Discourse”

by George Shamshayooadeh | Xchanges 9.1

Course Arrangement

Thus, a thematic arrangement of curricular activities and readings would be adopted so that students would be exposed to multiple readings, excerpts, and articles on a given topic or theme with varying viewpoints and arguments. They would be expected to become familiar and well-versed in various arguments and positions along with their pros and cons on specific topics. Throughout the process, they would be urged to position their arguments by selecting, using, and appropriating the different arguments and ideas they have internalized and use linguistic signs including formal rhetorical devices, borrowed ideas, and linguistic cues (such as the related terms or jargon) in order to become part of the conversation on a given topic.

In her seminal study on academic writing and textual identity construction, Roz Ivanic postulates four interrelated components: autobiographical self, discoursal self, self as author, and possibilities for selfhood. Of particular relevance to this discussion are autobiographical self and self as author. The latter pertains to such issues as establishing authority within the context of academic writing and the extent to which student-writers present themselves as authoritative to join the disciplinary conversations. In this respect, any textual decisions and choices that the writers make, as Abasi, Akbari, and Graves aptly note, “are simultaneously decisions of self representation and identity construction” (104).

Part of the construction of textual identity is the “representation of self as intertextually knowledgeable” and “self-alignment with the privileged discourse” by becoming familiar with the major debates within the discourse community that would make individual writers appear as legitimate participants who can make valuable contributions (Abasi, Akbari, and Graves 107-108). Thus, both identification and addressivity become useful in this intertextual framework by directing the textual choices that students make in order to identify with the disciplinary debates and positions within the discourse communities.

Similarly in online classes, X. Liang et al. note that to create a complex, interactive instructional experience online, the instructor should employ “interactive elements, a task-oriented approach to discussion and authentic scenarios presenting a situated learning environment.” They advise online instructors to initially “provide the learners with pre-structured threads to guide the learner,” which in turn will be followed by role play or forced discussion, thus allowing students the freedom to examine the issues at hand with more depth and flexibility.

Consequently, combining the Burkean term identification with the Bakhtinian concepts of addressivity and appropriation as the organizing conceptual premises within the intertextual context would prove instrumental in directing student writing into productive participation within an intertextual framework. As Bazerman aptly points out, “intertextuality is not just a matter of which other texts you refer to, but how you use them, what you use them for, and ultimately how you position yourself as a writer to them to make your own statement” (94).